Altruism: The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World

by Matthieu Ricard

I don't think people in cities are particularly prone to "everyone for himself" thinking. The benefits outweigh the costs.

I don't really think that's true.

We see, then, in light of this chapter, that self-interested altruism and reciprocal altruism are different from narrow-minded selfishness in that they allow constructive relationships to be woven between members of society. They can also be a springboard for selfless altruism.

Moreover, sociologists have shown that the frequency of altruistic actions diminished when they were linked to some material reward.

Awards like these should make clear that its not a *re*ward.

when one witnesses this goodness, it is better to be inspired by it than to denigrate it, and to do one’s best to give it a larger place in our existence.

If there is “banality of good,” it’s also a sign that we are all potentially capable of doing good around us.

Similarly, since 2002, GlobalGiving has financed the completion of over 5,000 charity projects.

She sent National Guard troops to New Orleans, with the authorization to shoot at looters, stating: “These troops are fresh back from Iraq, well-trained, experienced, battle-tested, and under my orders to restore order in the streets. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.”

Deterrance to violence is necessary to curb it though. It's as much a part of human nature as altruism. And lack of violence I would argue is a prerequisite to selfless altruism.

Social heroism—the heroism of activists against racism during apartheid in South Africa, or of whistle-blowers exposing a scandal in their company or government—is less spectacular and usually transpires over a longer period of time

The thing that enables this kind of selfless altruism is the fact that it's the genes that are selfish rather than the individual.

At the extreme limit, in order to rid themselves of all feeling of distress at the idea of behaving selfishly, some go so far as to invent a philosophical system based on a reversal of values. This was the case for the American thinker and novelist Ayn Rand.

This seems a bit harsh.

This does not not in and of itself make it wrong. Humans often behave in way that defy common sense. We often fool ourselves with illusions.

Americans find it more attractive to believe that this mood, along with jealousy, hatred, violence, and incest, is the inevitable remnant of our animal heritage and so we must learn to accept it.

Even if it were true that's not a reason to give up and accept it. We can alter our natures through education.

It would have been preferable for evolutionists to use other terms, such as “beneficial,” “useful,” “advantageous,” or “favorable” to others, for instance, in order to prevent their discussions on the nature of evolutionary altruism from influencing our vision of real altruism in human nature, as so often happens.

I don't really see "real altruism" as being different than "evolutionary altruism". "Real altruism" arises because the *genes* are selfish and not the individuals. We can then coopt this behavior of the genes to be altruistic to an ever wider group of beings.

Still, according to the great ethologist Jane Goodall, this book became a bestseller “in part, I think, because for many people it provided an excuse for human selfishness and cruelty. It was just our genes. We couldn’t help it… It was comforting perhaps to disclaim responsibility for our bad behavior.”32

I didn't think that at all. Altruism is something innate at the level of family and people we immediately come into contact with. Even then it's ruthlessly calculated to preserve the genes. Almost no one will innately die to save a single sibling and will only choose death to save two 50% of the time. We have difficulty feeling sympathy for people we don't see. With training we can change these altruistic mechanisms to incorporate more people but it requires training. We are not innately altruistic. To say we are innately more altruistic than the calculated altruism requires an evolutionary reason and there is none. It's an appeal to a non-existant higher purpose.

However, while still remaining in agreement with the Darwinian principles of evolution, extended altruism is fully explicable by taking into account the basic role of cooperation in evolution.

How is a Tiger raising a group of pigs serving her genes? How is this not a misfiring or misprioritization that does not benefit her genes?

For forty years, this theory based on the importance of kinship has dominated evolutionist thinking.

Perhaps, yes, there are genes for general cooperation. But the relationship with non-kin would have to only last as long as it was beneficial to the individual. Carte blanche cooperation seems wrong, and counter intuitive. It still feels like there is an appeal to higher power or higher purpose here.

Still, this model brings new arguments to the idea of natural selection operating on multiple levels: that of individuals, that of groups of individuals, and that of cultures which influence the behavior of these groups.

Group dynamocs seem plausible but I don't see evolutionary advantage to sacrifice of self for non-kin. It seems to me that an individual's genes are better off if they go it alone than sacrificing.

strongly cooperative groups survive better than other groups.

Yes but you need to show how this would benefit individual genes. Just because there is a benefit doesn't mean that it's compatible with evolution.

despite the presence of a certain number of selfish individuals, or freeriders, that profit from the altruism of others.

In fact a group *must* have some freeriders because at a certain percentage being a freerider is a viable option for gaining an advantage. Again we kind of see hints at idealism and appeals to higher purpose rather that acknowleging the darker realities of life and evolution.

freeriders will regularly introduce themselves

It's a dormant gene even cooperators carry.

when our parents grow old and become helpless, our concern, love, and care for them increase strongly, and they become like our children.7

I wonder what the evolutionary advantage to this is. Perhaps misfiring of a parental genes?

No scientific data, however, allows us yet to conclude that violence is an internal, dominant impulse among men and animals.

The question isn't whether it's a dominant state. Violence is a costly and risky behavior. The question is really, whether animals will choose violence when it suits them rather than obstain because of morals. I would hold that without training, animals will choose violence.

Such acts of caring for their sick or handicapped fellows are frequent among the great apes.

I'm reminded that it's something of a fallacy to assume that because something is natural, that it must be good.

Aware of the other’s need and witnessing his powerlessness, the neighbor lifts the hook holding the chain, thus allowing his companion to eat his fill.

Most of the preceding examples involve a cost/benefit analysis and included little cost to the on performing altruism.

It was the moderate reactions, the ones that seemed simply to have the aim of attracting the other’s attention without harassing him, that led to the largest number of prosocial choices.

I wonder of the chimp would be altruistic if the other couldn't see him or his choices.

it does indicate that some animals are capable of empathic concern, that is, altruism.

Capability does not mean it would be acted on by all or even most of a species.

The realization that all sentient beings, from the simplest to the most complex, are part of an evolving continuum, and that there is no basic rupture between the different degrees of their evolution,

But you hint that there is by using the term "sentient beings". Are there animals that aren't sentient?

Research carried out over the past thirty years, especially that of Michael Tomasello and Felix Warneken,1 weighs in favor of the former hypothesis.

The whole society corrupts us, "noble savage", stuff is bunk. The reality is we are really neither. We are prescribed to be social but society fixes many of our ills.

Later, after the age of five, the tendency toward cooperation and mutual aid is influenced by learning social relationships and by considerations of reciprocity, unknown by younger children, who help indiscriminately.

This says children are taught social relationships and implies this learning is a bad thing. But ignores the possibility that this is a natural part of development influenced by the genes.

Since then, countless experimental studies have shown that quite the opposite is true, and that empathy manifests very early on in children.

He seems to imply that children have the purest form of empathy and it's corrupted later but maybe it's just a simple developing form of empathy or altruism? A developed form is more nuanced and tuned for perpetuation of genes.

In fact, the children showed so much enthusiasm that, to observe differences in their willingness to help, they had to be distracted while the experimenter got back into a situation where he seemed to need help.

Could this be part of a learning process rather than a hightened sense of empathy?

These discoveries go completely against the ideas of Freud, for whom “children are completely egoistic; they feel their needs intensely and strive ruthlessly to satisfy them.”28

But children *do* try to exploit their parents and compete for their parent's resources with their siblings. It's not like children are pure altruists.

So a wise education should consist of preserving natural inclinations to cooperate while still protecting oneself, and should do so without inculcating in the child selfish, individualistic, and narcissistic values.

This seems obvious and what education is already doing for the most part.

The results on the physical and psychological development of these children were catastrophic.

This fact that this happened in reality and not fiction is amazing to me. A testiment to how dangerous unscientific ideas can be.

Researchers have established a link between the physical violence these children have undergone and a weak degree of empathy and sociability.

A good case for family planning.

If (fake) blood was trickling from the victim’s mouth, the rate of intervention fell from 95% to 65% and the interventions were less immediate (an average of a minute went by before anyone intervened)—the sight of blood frightens people and increases the psychological cost of help.

Wow. This is scary.

When a child calls out to a passerby, “I’m lost, could you call my home?” three-quarters of the adults of a small town grant his request, as opposed to less than half in a large city.

This is crazy. It seems like alow risk thing to do. Taking the child to the police station is also an option.

inhabitants of cities “adapt to the constant demands of city life by reducing their involvement in the lives of their fellow citizens.”

There is a feeling that this would be unwelcome for the other person.

The situation in cities and places where there is a lot of suffering poses a constant challenge, then, to those who are concerned with the fate of their fellow citizens. If one puts oneself every time in the other’s place, it becomes hard to look away. But if we wanted to intervene, we’d wind up doing nothing else.

Children raised in collectivist cultures, in which stress is placed on the well-being of the group and on community life, exhibit much more altruistic behavior than children raised in individualist cultures.

Maybe. But many things are worse. Bullying is a problem among children in Japan who conform to a nasty group. Also, it seems like institutions are not as good in these countries.

insecurity, which makes us more worried about our own fate than the needs of others, and makes us try to maintain a stable, protective, and safe environment. This feeling limits openness to others and discourages risk-taking.

Meeting the people one is helping, taking part in volunteer activities, belonging to nonprofit organizations, and putting into play one’s own skills in the service of others go hand-in-hand with a high level of wellbeing.

Our character traits last as long as we do nothing to improve them

You have to wonder why humans are like that to begin with. There may be a evolutionary reason.

“It seems that one benefit of some part of the life paths these two have followed is becoming more aware of these subtle signs of how other people feel,”

Maybe people who recognize facial expressions better are inclined to meditate?