For Some Primates, Survival of the Nicest

[pocaracas]

So, now even baboons adhere to some objective morality...
in
sciencemag.org - For Some Primates, Survival of the Nicest


Just the first few paragraphs:

Baboons, like people, really do get by with a little help from their friends. Humans with strong social ties live longer, healthier lives, whereas hostility and "loner" tendencies can set the stage for disease and early death. In animals, too, strong social networks contribute to longer lives and healthier offspring—and now it seems that personality may be just as big a factor in other primates' longevity status. A new study found that female baboons that had the most stable relationships with other females weren't always the highest up in the dominance hierarchy or the ones with close kin around—but they were the nicest.

Scientists are increasingly seeing personality as a key factor in an animal's ability to survive, adapt, and thrive in its environment. But this topic isn't an easy one to study scientifically, says primatologist Dorothy Cheney of the University of Pennsylvania. "Research in mammals, birds, fish, and insects shows individual patterns of behavior that can't be easily explained. But the many studies of personality are based on human traits like conscientiousness, agreeableness, or neuroticism. It isn't clear how to apply those traits to animals," Cheney says.

[The Grand Nudger]

I like the nod to the difficulties of anthropomorphism.

[TaraJo]

So, next time some twat of a theist tells us that atheists have no moral compass, we can show them this, right?

[Annik]

That makes a lot of sense. Working together makes it a lot easier to survive in order to propagate the species.

[Anomalocaris]

That makes a lot of sense. Working together makes it a lot easier to survive in order to propagate the species.

If that were true, then all species would be highly social and cooperative. They are not. Clearly, there is no universal winning strategy from which can be derived any "objective morality". Being hostile loners work better for some species, cooporative living work better for others.

[Annik]

I never said it was true for all things.

[The Grand Nudger]

Being a hostile loner even works for some individuals in otherwise friendly, social groups. Even more amusingly, what worked yesterday may not work tomorrow.

[TaraJo]

I think most species have a bit of a social balancing act. They still need to basically take care of themselves first but they also have to have some concern for the welfare of others in their species. So as much as humans are social creatures, you're going to spend a month locked in a room with a stranger and there's only enough food for one of you, I think most people would put their own well being over his.

[Napoléon]

So, now even baboons adhere to some subjective morality...

Fixed that for you.

[Haydn2]

That makes a lot of sense. Working together makes it a lot easier to survive in order to propagate the species.

If that were true, then all species would be highly social and cooperative. They are not. Clearly, there is no universal winning strategy from which can be derived any "objective morality". Being hostile loners work better for some species, cooporative living work better for others.

Our morality might actually threaten our species in the end . But don't worry a few selfish ones will survive. Then they , in time , will sucumb to those who co-operate and the beautiful ying and yang of survival will continue in the same way as it will always have done.