So here’s the thing. The behavior that they are describing as “nice guy” behavior, the blue throat behavior, is essentially lizard racism. It is an irrational preference for lizards that look similar.
So this raises some questions in my mind:
Is racism altruistic?
Is this research based on a fundimentally racist ideology?
If we set aside the “nice guy” spin, and hypothesize that there are some blue-throated lizards that would be unwilling to protect other blue-throated lizards, but are willing to be protected, how does that alter your emotional reaction?
(Of course) is there some reason why the (admittedly simple) behavior of lizards is incomparable to the behavior of humans?
So far as I know lizards don’t have the cognative ability to come up with such abtract concepts as race or racism but I’m hardly an expert on animal behavior.
Aside from their psysiological makeup and their mental abilities, nah.
I would dispute that racism is inherently an abstract concept. Studies such as this one suggest that racism is genetically predisposed in some animals, and it may well be genetically predisposed in humans.
I think it’s “natural” to distrust people who don’t look like you. But that’s not the point. Our brain is sufficiently powerful enough for us to realize that the “natural” thing to do isn’t always the best thing to do. That’s why we’re not lizards.
While the individual blue throats were described as “not related,” the article seemed to suggest that they still shared more genetic material with each other than with orange-throats and yellow-throats which supports the standard altruistic model of sexual (non-)behavior.
It is entirely possible that this provides an insight into the origins of racism among animals. However, it should be noted that the gene pool of a small colony of lizards in a single California valley system is probably rather more circumscribed than the human gene pool, so the most it says is that there may have been a time when “racism” provided a cue for altruistic behavior, but it says nothing regarding racism as an altruistic behavior in a human gene pool that is already much more diverse within perceived races than would ever be supported by a continued reliance on that mating strategy.
It is human nature to socially align along distinctions. Religious people die for each other too and reject other religions, so do people from the same nation, people from the same ideology, etc. Racism is most likely a side effect of socialization. I don’t know if that makes it altruistic anymore than people protecting their own religious kind and condeming other religions though.
That’s interesting. Why does genetic diversity countermand reliance on a cooperative mating strategy? It seems to me that if there are genes that encourage a cooperative mating strategy, and the animals that have this cooperative mating strategy are able to recognize it in each other, and if the environment is such that a cooperative mating strategy is beneficial, then unrelated genetic differences are irrelevant. The behavior is what is important; if the behavior is beneficial, then nothing else matters. It may be that a common cue to initiate this sort of strategy is discrimination based on arbitrary similarity.
The question is, where is the disconnect? Why do we regard this as negative (racism, nationalism, religeous intolerance, classism) in the case of people, but altruistic in the case of lizards?
A suggested answer: perhaps the societal disapproval of discrimination is a symptom of a broad consciousness that while this cooperative (mating) strategy is prevalent (evidently because it used to be effective), it is no longer effective.
Speak for yerself!
Seriously, going so far as to say that those lizards are racist sounds somewhat implausible. These lizards are somewhat different among themselves, so you could say that the blues stick with the blues and the yellows stick with the yellows because they see the others as different species.
Plus, even if they don’t see each other as different species, you’re not taking into consideration stuff like evolution of the lizards. Maybe a long time ago all lizards (blues, yellows, and orange) lived together. The violent nature of the orange lizard and the deceiving nature of the yellow lizard forced the blue lizards to stay away from them, which, eventually, several years later, translated into the current color segregation we see. It’s survival of the fittest, the blues figured out that they needed to stay away from the oranges and the yellows in order to survive and procreate.
I’m fairly sure a deer will shy away from a tiger, and that doesn’t make him a racist.
Because cooperative mating strategy is generally proposed as a tactic to further one’s own genes.
In the clearer cases of altruistic sexual behaviors, the participant that is not contributing eggs or sperm is generally related (most frequently a sibling) to the creature that will contribute eggs or sperm. In other words, Sib A and Sib B have the same parents and so are passing on the same basic genes (as modified by mutations, etc.) If Sib B acts as a “maiden aunt” or “batchelor uncle,” providing food or protection for the offspring of Sib A, then some (fairly large) number of Sib B’s genes will be passed on to the next generation (via Sib A) even though Sib B is not passing on any of her or his personal genetic structure.
If Critter B has no relation to Critter A, but Critter B continues to act as a “maiden aunt” or “batchelor uncle,” then none of Critter B’s genes are being passed on to the next generation, violating the suspected purpose behind altruistic behavior.
It is not simply a matter of making sure some critter breeds. If that were the case, the blue throated “batchelor uncle” could actually team up with an attacking orange throat to overwhelm the paternal, nesting blue throat and guarantee that the orange throat successfully impregnated the female. It would be a successful reproductive strategy because it would guarantee that some lizard successfully bred, but it would be counterproductive to keeping the blue throat line going.
Leaving aside ethical issues, we already know that genetic diversity is widespread within humanity. While humans are too much alike to produce subspecies or races, within each population of humans, the diversity is great. We can find Asians who are more like some Africans than other Asians, Africans who are more like some Asians than other Africans, and Americans who are more like some Africans or Asians than other Americans. Associating by external appearance (as identified by perceived races) will not promote genetic continuity; that continuity has already been lost.
The reason this strategy wouldn’t be effective isn’t that the blue “batchelor uncle” has different genes than the orange-throat, the reason is that there is no societal symetry, and the blue “batchelor uncle” wouldn’t have any relatives that could enjoy reciprocal cooperation from an orange-throat (orange-throats don’t cooperate, they are wholely self-interested).
On the other hand, if several lizards cooperated to raid blue-throat dens, and they took turns impregnating the females, that could be an effective strategy for all of them, regardless of whether they were genetically related. That sort of thing has happened a lot in human history during “spoils of war” situations.
I did, but you compared this lizard population to deer and tigers. I just wanted to point out that they can’t be different species if they are competing for the same mates. But I see what you are getting at I think: you are saying that the segregation imposed by the blues is a protective adaptation. I think what you mean to say is that the males regard each other as friends or enemies because of that adaptation, not as “different species,” because clearly they all instictively know that they are all after the same females. That isn’t consistent with “different species,” it’s a different dynamic.
There is nothing in the article to indicate that there is social symmetry in any event. It appears (at this point) to be entirely chemically/biologically driven. Unless there is some genetic connection among the blue throats, there is no benefit to be gained by any blue throat for reducing his mating opportunities to defend another blue throat. Among humans, that genetic tie simply does not exist outside limited populations and never extend as far as any group assigned a “racial” identification.
I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that social interactions cannot be chemically/biologically driven? What I understand “social” to mean is just that they are acting more as a group than as individuals. Clearly, the blue throats are doing that, so I would say they are certainly acting socially (by my broad use of the word).
I disagree. If none of the blue throats exhibit this behavior, then there is no benefit for one of them to exhibit this behavior. But if all of them do it, all of them benefit genetically, regardless of the cause (whether it be because they all share the same genetics, or they are all manipulated by orbital mind control lasers).
The blue throat that sacrifices his mating potential to defend another’s does not benefit from this hard-wired “culture” but some of his relatives undoubtedly will, provided that there is symmetry in the interactions (that is, if his relatives are equally likely to be defended or defending).
I agree that it is mysterious how such a hard-wired “culture” could originate in the first place, but I don’t think it is impossible, and it is certainly maintainable.
My reading of the article was that the scientists were studying this precisely because the genetic benefit to the defender was not fully understood.