The Theory of Selfish Altruism

(incomplete rough draft)

The claim: that it is in one's own best interests (i.e. selfish interests) to benefit others; but that as true altruism requires selfless dedication to the benefit of others, then this must be labeled as "selfish altruism" or else some other action.

Example 1: pestilence
Many horrible diseases are presently found only in the tropics. These are (1) the vast majority of the pernicious fungal diseases, (2) the majority of the fatal parasitic diseases, and (3) the almost-exclusive majority of the hemorrhagic fevers.

Because they are only found in the tropics, and because most of the world's leading pharmaceutical enterprises were founded in and continue to operate in the developed world, and because the developed world is largely outside the tropics, and because pharmaceutical companies operate on a profit-based model, (all four things having been observed as compounding factors for what I'm about to say) the horrible diseases of the tropics have gone largely unresearched and untreated. They are ignored, as are the people who suffer from them.

However, it is well-known that citizens from developed countries are just as susceptible to these pathogens as are the people who live in the areas where the pathogen is indigenous. It is also well-known that microbial life forms display a high capacity for survival and adaptation. It has been observed in our lifetimes that life forms once indigenous to a specific region of the world -- Africanized honey bees (originally cross-bred in Latin America), Japanese beetles, and ashwood borers, just to name a few -- have spread across continents and compromised the infrastructure of the newly-infested regions.

It is therefore proposed that it is not a question of if but of when these horrible diseases from the tropics will migrate to our shores; and that it is therefore in our own best interests (our own selfish interest) to research these diseases and to find treatments and cures for all of them before it is too late. It is further proposed that putting this off until the day the diseases reach our shores is not a wise decision as it has been speculated by many anthropologists in recent years that one of the reasons African civilization was never able to get very far along was because people were badgered and killed off from every end by different diseases which made them sleepy, made their eyes itch, made their anuses bleed, or made their feet painfully swell up. (Can you name the diseases? ;)) It would be unwise to assume that a European scientist could do his best work if he was constantly being driven mad by a worm itchily swimming around in his eyeball; by a fever from malaria; by his guts being turned to liquid shit by ebola; etc.


Example 2: war
(make a long story short)
- if you ignore other people's sufferings, then they will resent you for your indifference
- if you cause other people's sufferings, then they will really hate you
- people who resent or hate your country are likely to join militant groups which take action against your country
- while you can't please everybody in the world, you definitely do yourself justice to try and make a positive difference
- making a positive difference does not mean fighting wars of emancipation which have not been clearly requested (e.g. the new world order's equivalent of the 20th century's Godwin's law Hitler invocation, need I even mention it by name?)
- it also does not mean turning a blind eye to people who are pleading for your aid in emancipating them (e.g. Burma)
- it means providing peaceful support to all
- and providing militant support only to those who expressly request it and who oh-so-clearly need it, and where it's a black-and-white case-closed case of a bad government suppressing its peace-loving people
- I concede that this is easier said than done

Example 3: preservation
- Several reasons to save other non-human life forms on Planet Earth include: because they're cool, because they're cute, and because life is sacred. But another valid argument in favor of preserving wildlife is this: the more non-human species, the less fitness-pressure placed upon disease-causing agents to adapt to infecting humans. Do not mistake this for a Lemarckian "giraffes have long necks because it suited them" argument. This is a real-world example of diseases being able to infect different species with different efficacies, and of real-world factual observation that those diseases, when forced to only work with one particular species, will adapt to infecting it maximally. Specific examples: ebola (marburg vs. zaire), influenza (avian strains vs. human strains), polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, etc. The point is, a disease which does not "feel" (if you will) any pressure to evolve will not typically evolve to infect humans more than it already does. For example, if a monkey disease has plenty of monkeys to infect, and it currently has a 40% infection rate in humans, then it will continue to have a 40% infection rate in humans 100, 1000, 10,000 years from now bar some fluke. But if you take away the monkeys, then the disease will settle for the 40% of humans it can get; and with time, you can guarantee that it will improve in its ability to infect humans.

Long story short, the more animals there are, the more decoys there are. A selfish reason to save the whales if ever you heard one. lol

- we all know how deforestation can mess with the climate, with agriculture (soil being leeched), etc. long story short, deforestation can fuck up human life, too. So save the trees if only for humanity's sake.

- we've all heard the stories about how exotic plants and insects and whatnot have venoms and saps and such that are potent anti-tumor drugs. You get the picture: "save the rain forests and the oceans so we can research these animals and cure human diseases."

taking a break; publishing for now