Talk:Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution

scientific relevance

How accurate or out of date are his observations on animal behaviour? Is the book still considered important in biology? It would be good to address those questions in the article, but I don't know enough to do it myself. -Matt Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.95.128.247 (talk)

A quick googling turned up http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/classes/Anarchy/finalprojects/brooksfinal.html // Liftarn

there is also this: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/mutual-aid-an-introduction-and-evaluation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.80.55 (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense -- not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.

From a scientific point of view, this is apparently outdated ideology without any relevance to biology, the subject that Kropotkin is trying to usurp. Its likeness to modern genetic altruism is shallow and coincidental - or at least reached from very different arguments. Unsociable species like moles, pikes, eagles or mooses are certainly not doomed to decay. "Old age" is a totally irrelevant factor in evolutionary progress, and so on. --Sponsianus (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your stmt makes no sense, since "scientific POV" doesn't apply onto ideology. It seems you believe there can be a neutral and objective ideology. Maybe he is "trying to usurp", which is usual in a political context, as well as neoliberalism has "usurped" the survival of the fittest for their antinomian standpoints, but there is no way in universe that science can rule out or verify ideology, since science is not about personal opinions. Kropotkin also presents a scientific reasoning, and this reasoning can be criticised according to scientific methodology and knowledge. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the section on "A quasi-biological work" as it is pure assertion. Stephen Jay Gould, for example, noted that Kropotkin's basic thesis was correct -- cooperation between animals ensures survival. As for mechanisms, Kropotkin's argument is that co-operative species will survive better rather than those which compete internally. This would ensure genes survived to the next generation. I assume that Darwin, also, "has little to do with the actual science of evolutionary biology. [Darwin], who was active many years before the breakthrough of genetics, has of course no mechanisms to suggest on how genes could be affected"! As for "should be seen chiefly as a commentary on human society", well, his account starts with animals and then moves onto human history. Many scientists note that his work is an early account of co-operation and mutualism in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the quote above again and see that this is clearly a political agenda. Kropotkin was not a biologist - unlike Darwin, who was well aware that the mechanisms of genetic heritage were yet to be discovered.

Firstly: He was and is still considered a "naturalist", which may be considered being related to both folklore and biology. Karl Marx, who many love to hate and some other love to love, is considered being both a sociologist and a very important economist (of the capitalist economy of course), so there is no rule that say that ideologists cannot be scientists, however distasteful that might be for non neutral idiosyncratic POVs. Secondly: one doesn't need to belong to a certain science community to get ones theories accepted, counterexample is Alfred Wegener and his theory of Continental Movements. I.e. one citation does not disprove him being a biologist. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay". This should mean that the major birds of prey - highly intelligent creatures and skilled hunters - are on their way out because they hunt alone, whereas poultry will enjoy a "higher intellectual development" as they live in flocks. This is nonsense of the worst kind and miles from what any serious biologist would agree with.

I have rewritten and elaborated my points but added some sentences to the effect that some of Kropotkin's ideas were precursors to modern notions of mutualism which you may be right to point out. If you want to rewrite this please do, but please sign in first. Sponsianus (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay" is a counterexample. While it doesn't debunk the entirety of Kropotkins' discourse, it would be desirable to have a citation supporting criticisms of such statements. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You should avoid your points acc2 WP:NPOV. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your "A quasi-biological work" section Sponsianus. See the Wikipedia guidelines on NPOV. If you wish to put your personal view, place it in the discussion section. If you wish to refer to criticisms "that have been published by reliable sources" (as per NPOV policy) - even if it is your own published critiques - put it in a 'Criticisms' section and footnote/reference appropriately. This is not a comment on whether or not there is merit in your critique - merely an attempt to stick to a Wikipedia policy that is meant to keep entries from degenerating into free-for-all arguments between supporters and detractors of particular viewpoints. 203.220.107.27 (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now read Gould's essay on Kropotkin and not surprisingly Gould and I have the same view on Kropotkin's actual value. "If Kropotkin overemphasized mutual aid, most Darwinians in Western Europe had exaggerated competition just as strongly". This is more or less paraphrasing what I wrote "Just like it counterparts, the works of social darwinism, Kropotkin's work attempts to use evolutionary biology to support his political stances". I have added Gould's essay as a reference.

You may be right that Wikipedia needs references to established writers even to state the obvious, but it would have been more constructive if you have added those references insteas of bluntly erasing my contributions. It is a very relevant question if Kropotkin's work was any good. Sponsianus (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your own POV from your section but left your Gould refs intact (not having access to the Gould work I am assuming that you are referencing him accurately, albeit ungrammatically). To say that Kropotkin was an anarchist therefore his work is biased is no more sensible than saying another author was a Republican, Anglican or Rotarian, therefore their work was biased. Everyone has a perspective and it should be judged on its merits, not according to prejudices against their politics, religion or race. Presumably you are not biased however, so I look forward to seeing you make similar edits to pages on the work of Social Darwinists like Huxley.

And I don't think the onus is on me to provide references for your edits. 203.220.106.131 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

'"Old age" is a totally irrelevant factor in evolutionary progress, and so on.'

If you are really a biology teacher, Sponsianus, I think you owe it to your students to read some Dawkins - especially 'The Selfish Gene'. Dawkins not only explains the importance of social transmission of data (memes) to evolution, he also shows how 'communities' of gene carriers interact to promote the spread of genes even at the expense of individual reproduction (e.g. sacrificing yourself to save several non-offspring relatives). 203.220.105.201 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I found an online copy of Gould's article and see that you have grossly misrepresented it Sponsianus. I have rewritten your section accordingly and provided a link so that readers themselves can decide whether my summation is accurate. 203.220.105.201 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear that it is actually you who have misunderstood Gould's article. Gould acknowledges that Kropotkin worked in an established tradition, that he made interesting observations which were ignored at the time and that he was not a crackpot. You mistake this praise to mean that Gould thinks that Kropotkin's ideas were generally founded on sound scientific principles which is certainly not the case. Let me quote:

Todes’s article does not make Kropotkin more correct, but it does place his writing into a general context that demands our respect and produces substantial enlightenment. Kropotkin was part of a mainstream flowing in an unfamiliar direction, not an isolated little arroyo.

This Russian school, Gould continues, were critical of Malthus and western social darwinists. Today, these are largely obsolete issues.

I would fault Kropotkin only in two ways – one technical, the other general. He did commit a common conceptual error in failing to recognize that natural selection is an argument about advantages to individual organisms, however they may struggle. The result of struggle for existence may be cooperation rather than competition, but mutual aid must benefit individual organisms in Darwin’s world of explanation. Kropotkin sometimes speaks of mutual aid as selected for the benefit of entire populations or species – a concept foreign to classic Darwinian logic (where organisms work, albeit unconsciously, for their own benefit in terms of genes passed to future generations).

This is the gist of what I wrote: that there are no genetic mechanisms that work on a population on its whole, only through the individual.

More generally, I like to apply a somewhat cynical rule of thumb in judging arguments about nature that also have overt social implications: When such claims imbue nature with just those properties that make us feel good or fuel our prejudices, be doubly suspicious.

Which is also rather in line with what I wrote - a social work camouflaged as biology. To this, I added a rather obvious refutation of the claim that solitary animals are less advanced. Please don't try to quote Dawkins on me. I am well aware of the shift from individuals to the genetic perspective and that was not what my quote was about. What I wrote about "old age" was that it is apparently irrelevant to the "genetic advancement" that Kropotkin proposes - in itself a dubious term, all existing species are per definition advanced enough to have survived. Anyway, among the vertebrates there are sociable creatures like mice who live for months, and insociable creatures like birds of prey - or albatrosses - who survive for many decades.

It is apparent nonsense that sociable animals are more "advanced" than non-sociable ones. Gould declines to comment on these excessive statements by Kropotkin, apparently because he sees them for what they are - political rhetoric - and appreciates the virtues of his real biological observations. Much as a modern astronomer can appreciate the works of an ancient colleague who was a geocentrist, without perpetually stating that his basic world view was as wrong as it gets.

Finally, if the pages of Social Darwinism does not include criticism of its contamination of biology with political ideas, this is certainly not good. I will look up the matter . Sponsianus (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"This is the gist of what I wrote: that there are no genetic mechanisms that work on a population on its whole, only through the individual."

You are quite incorrect and again I refer you to Dawkins. While it is true that Darwinian natural selection does not postulate a mechanism whereby evolution acts upon populations as a whole, its is fairly obvious that, for example, a genetic predisposition to self sacrifice at the expense of reproduction can result in more surviving copies of groups of genes than pure self preservation (e.g. sacrificing yourself to preserve two other individual who each share more than 50% of your own genetic makeup). It would be more technically correct, albeit just as narrowly reductionist, to say that genetic mechanisms do not work through an individual but only at a cellular level. In fact the literal truth is that they work only in conjunction with other genes and the organelles. But to insist that natural selection works only on individuals is to ignore bisexual reproduction, among many other things - something that even those as ignorant of genes as Kropotkin and Darwin would have been aware of.

I will refrain from commenting on your POV regarding the Gould article beyond saying that your assumptions regarding my opinion of it are unfounded. My edit includes the link and is free of the editorialising that characterised your version, so I think interested readers are perfectly able to make up their own minds should they so wish.

Regarding your apparent outrage at Kropotkin's alleged lack of scientific rigour, you might take note of the philosophy heading on the page and the big circle-A (which, in case you are unaware, is a political symbol). Are you also going to attack it for not being a cookbook and an aircraft maintenance manual? 203.220.106.53 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your discussion of genetic mechanisms in a modern light (correct though they are) have little to do with Kropotkin or what I meant to say about him, and you have ceased to even motivate your claims that I have misinterpreted Gould's article.

Regarding your last paragraph: no. If Kropotkin's work is one of anarchistic philosophy - and not biology, which is seemingly the subject of "Mutual Aid", then its scientific merits - such as they are - should be pointed out. Is this a philosophical book, or does it contain valid biological observations? This was lacking in the article before, and I have tried to amend that. I am not outraged at anything, I merely want to emphasise that "Mutual Aid" is a portmanteau and this should be explained in the article. When I have time I will rewrite the section once more. Sponsianus (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a few quotes from actual scientists who show that Kropotkin's views were, and still are, scientifically respectable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.192.31 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have two wishes based from the above discussion: First Sir 203.220.106.53! (and other IP guys). You are obviously very proficient in writing neutrally and knowledgeable in Wikipedias policies, is it possible from your employment conditions and such considerations to get a wikipedia account and use this, so that we can see who is who? Secondly Sir Sponsianus! We have now readily perceived that you from a competition-ideological standpoint detest Kropotkin, and such a standpoint is valuable for finding various kinds of sources criticism, while at the very least I am very sympathetical towards Kropotkin's standpoint and Frans de Waal's modern counterparts, which might be usable for producing a discourse about Mutual Aid itself. When adhering to WP:NPOV, could you imagine us collaborating in producing a neutral article, and in some little degree try to tone down the subjectivity in the phrasing about the article contents, so to instead collaborate to the goal to let the facts speak for themselves (WP:DECISION)? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

New scientifical research by the University of York (2018) shows that healthcare was allready existing in the Neanderthal period and that it was probably crucial for the survival of human species. Maybe Kropotkin wasn't so wrong in his ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.90.39 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)