assassin_696

The concept of morality is a human construct, but regardless animals do show some moral behaviour. Motive is different, humans are moral but their motives may be rooted in desire for sex or approval. Below is a lazy copy and paste I did of a pretty equally lazy essay I did last year: [hide]Altruism is typically thought of as the selfless concern for the good of others, and is seen as a noble virtue in many cultures and religions throughout the world. However in evolutionary biology altruism refers to behaviour by an individual which increases the survival fitness of an individual whilst decreasing the fitness of the actor. At first glance it may be hard to see how this kind of behaviour could ever possibly evolve. Whilst helping out a fellow member of your species with no cost to yourself might seem to be a reasonable thing to do since you are likely to share many of the same genes (an example of kin selection, explained in more detail later), to do so when your fitness is directly impacted may seem contrary to the wishes of your own selfish genes. The definition of true altruism is not clear cut; however I am taking it to mean altruism which is completely selfless in nature, i.e. with no long term or short term benefit to the altruists genes whatsoever. Nevertheless, numerous examples of apparent altruism do exist in the natural world. For example, dolphins will often support sick or injured animals, swimming under them and pushing them to the surface so that they can breathe. Vampire bats will often regurgitate blood to sick or unlucky roost mates that have been unable to find a meal. Walruses have been observed adopting orphans who have lost their parents to predators. Meerkats will often stand on guard to warn the rest of the group about predators at greater risk to themselves. Many of these examples can be attributed to kin selection. This is the theory that describes how closely related individuals will often perform apparently altruistic acts for other members of their group. However this kind of behaviour is rarely considered truly altruistic. For example consider a hypothetical situation where one animal is drowning and another walking by. Since rescuing the animal will incur some potential cost to the animal, c, since there is a chance of it drowning too survival of the fittest type reasoning might indicate that animal should just keep on walking by. But if the passing animal is of the same species as the drowning one then they will likely share some of the same genes. Therefore by saving the animal you would increase the survival fitness of those genes that you share with the drowning animal, a benefit which we can call b. The benefit will go up as the relatedness of each animal to each other increases, which can be worked out by simple Mendelian genetics. So if we denote their relatedness by r, then for identical twins the relatedness will be one. For parents and their offspring their relatedness will be 0.5. Therefore the condition for natural selection to favour altruism among relatives is that it should be performed if rb > c, a condition called Hamiltons rule. This can explain much of the apparent altruism observed in the animal kingdom. For example the blood regurgitating vampire bats have a relatively small cost to them associated with regurgitating one meal to a struggling bat, so their cost is small, whereas the benefit to the recipient of the meal is very large because the alternative might mean death. Therefore it is clear how this behaviour might be selected for, but as mentioned before it is not generally thought of as true altruism since the altruistic genes are merely acting in their own interest. Nevertheless there are still some example of altruistic kin selection that are staggering in their scope. Perhaps the most obvious example of this would be matriphagy, or the consumption of the mother by the young seen in the spider Stegodyphus. Clearly the cost to the mother here is very high, but since she gives birth to many young with a high relatedness to her (0.5) then the benefit to her genes can be considered to outweigh the cost to her life. Perhaps the most astonishing acts of altruism exist in the social insects, where individuals in a colony like bees might knowingly commit suicide (in whatever sense a bee can know its future) to defend the colony. However this behaviour is really once again kin selection acting at its strongest. The suicidal solider bees are infertile, and since they have no reproductive potential, by defending their closely related colony they are acting in their genes best interests. Another area where there exists much potential for interesting discussion of apparent altruism is the observed phenomena of individuals in a group alerting the rest of their group by making alarm calls. Again, at first glance this may appear to be a heroic act of self-sacrifice since the animal making the alarm call is surely placing themselves at greater personal risk by alerting to the predator specifically to their presence. However with closer examination it can be shown that many of these acts of apparent altruism are actually either the actions of self-interested individuals (or their genes) or not as altruistic as they first appear. This explanation was thought up by Richard Dawkins and is known as the cave theory. Consider a flock of birds grazing on the ground with a hawk circling overhead. The hawk may not have noticed the birds yet, but if one of the birds does it will remain safe if it were to freeze and not attract attention to itself. However since the rest of the flock are still noisily grazing any one of them could attract the attention of the hawk and put the whole flock in danger. Therefore from the point of view of a selfish individual the best strategy may be to issue a quick warning call to its fellow birds and get them all to stop moving. Furthermore, the acoustic warning calls of birds are optimised to make them difficult to locate. Another example is that of the Thomsons gazelle, which will stott (leap around dramatically) in front of a predator, which serves as a warning to its companions. Clearly this can be in no way designed to be a discreet warning, since it is so obvious. However it is now thought that the display serves as a show of strength and confidence to the predator, in effect saying that the predator would have an easier meal if it went after the gazelles weaker, lower (or non) jumping companions. Another area where altruism might be considered to develop is in reciprocal altruism, a concept introduced by Robert Trivers. It is based largely on the field of mathematics called game theory, which has many applications in social sciences and evolutionary biology. Analyses of these situations always examine the payoff and cost for each possible scenario. To use an example given by Richard Dawkins again, consider a population of monkeys with a particular parasitic tick that lives in their hair and if left unchecked could lead to infection and death. A common social behaviour observed in many primates is their grooming of one another to remove these ticks and fleas; however it needs to be examined why this should be so. Let every monkey in a population have a sucker gene which means they indiscriminately groom any individual. This population could live quite happily, until genetic mutations throw up a new gene called cheat in an individual. This gene makes the individual receptive to being groomed but the individual will never return the favour of grooming. His average pay-off is higher than for the sucker, since he receives the grooming without having to do any in return. In this case the gene for cheat would spread rapidly through the population since no matter what the ratio, cheats will always do better than suckers in a population. Even when the population is declining towards extinction due to infection the cheat gene will still be doing better than the sucker gene. However then consider a new gene called grudger, the bearer of which will groom any individual once but remember if the grooming is not reciprocated. I.e. he bears a grudge against anyone who doesnt groom him back. In a population of cheats a single grudger gene is likely to go to extinction rapidly, since he would have to groom all individuals before realising none of them reciprocate, wasting a great deal of energy. However once there reaches a critical proportion of grudgers in a population their chance of meeting one another is high enough so that their payoff is greater than the cheats, since they are more likely to be groomed in return. In this case the cheats will begin to be driven towards extinction, with a few rare cheats remaining (since their chance of meeting the same grudger twice is relatively rare). Therefore in this case a population of cheats and grudgers are both evolutionary stable strategies, although the population of cheats has a higher chance of going to extinction. This perhaps then explains why so many social animals will perform altruistic acts for each other, in reality they are doing them because they expect the favour to be returned somewhere down the line. In conclusion, this essay has looked at many examples of apparent altruism and has shown nearly all of them to have some basis in selfish gene theory. Therefore of the examples discussed I dont think that any could be considered as truly altruistic. And there are numerous other explanations for altruistic behaviour which I havent even discussed, such as selective investment theory, which explains why some species which mate for life might in the courtship stage perform many acts which may be considered truly altruistic in the hope that they will get a long term payoff in terms of reproductive potential (and without wanting to anthropomorphise this essay any further, parallels could easily be seen in humans with this behaviour). However despite these it is my contention that sustained truly altruistic behaviour doesnt exist in animals. I say sustained, because there are still cases often reported in the news of animals behaving in a way that can only be considered truly altruistic, such as dolphins circling a struggling human swimmer to protect it from sharks. This kind of behaviour cannot be explained by any of the previously discussed methods, and so must be considered true altruism. The reason for this behaviour is hard to tell, however it may be because dolphins are conscious in a similar way to humans and can display emotions such as empathy like we can. This essay has also assumed that the title was referring to any animals other than humans. In humans true altruism is probably observed in charitable acts, however whether or not these acts have spread through memes and can be considered true altruism is a title for another essay. Therefore, apart from in extreme cases such as the dolphins mentioned and perhaps some of the behaviour of some of the primates, I dont believe that true altruism is observed in the animal kingdom. References The Selfish Gene Richard Dawkins Evolution Mark Ridley http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/behavior/Spring2001/Ewart/Altruism.html [/hide]

Judges are restricted by whatever sentencing guidelines they are given, trust me when I say prison overcrowding is not factored into their sentencing decisions. If the sentences are too lenient then there needs to be reform higher up, but any judges trying to reform from the bench would just have the sentence appealed and probably overturned.

To reply to this, definitely don't wear a white jacket, very few people can pull them off (especially young people) and he'd just end up standing out awkwardly. As someone else said, a white silk scarf adds a nice touch to black tie without being too showy. A hand tied bow tie is also a nice touch, people probably won't notice when you're wearing it but it's worth it for the effort of being able to casually untie it towards the end of the evening. Or wear a flower in the lapel with a waiscoat, or a pocket square (but not both).

Haha, I've known about her for a good while, but I've never actually listened to her music before. I just always lumped her together with the Justin Bieber/Jonas Brothers craze so I never bothered. That said, just listened to this song and it made me inexplicably happy. Yeah, there's something about it. I'd call it a guilty pleasure but I actually think it's a good song. The video is definitely a guilty pleasure though. :unsure:

You Belong With Me is an awesome song.

Zara winter coats are extremely slim fitting and not particularly thick, they're not cheap but the quality didn't seem that high. I bought a black overcoat from Jeff Banks a couple of years ago, similar in style to this: It looks good with a suit (what I primarily bought it for) but also looks good with jeans, smart shoes and a jumper in winter. It should last me for years. And whoever asked about Henri Lloyd, I bought a very nice white casual shirt from there this summer, they had some nice casual shirts and jumpers in their sale.

The question is, if the Constitution was rewritten today would the modern equivalents of the founding fathers still write in the 2nd Amendment? Nobody questions the fact that it's a constitutional right to be able to bear arms, the question is whether or not it's really what's best for America today.

Has anyone said Mumford & Sons yet? Christ they're annoyingly overrated. People with pretty bland taste think they're branching out into some niche folk-rock by listening to them.

At the moment I'm listening to a lot of: Interpol The Gaslight Anthem The Tallest Man On Earth Band of Horses Arcade Fire Seems to be indie-central over at my house!

They were great. I've always loved the Sherlock Holmes premise, I've read a lot of the books and stuff too so I was always going to watch this new series. It could have easily been a flop but it was well written and well acted. I thought the second episode was the weakest, but the first and last were terrific.

Those are quite bizarre options for the latest poll. I exercise about 4-5 times a week in the holidays, so what the hell do I put? It's not more than once a day but it works out at more than an hour a day, and definitely more than once a week. More sensible would be: Daily 4-5 times a week 3-4 times a week 2-3 times a week Once a week Rarely Never

Hit the gym last night, been making good progress with my squats since getting back into the routine. I had a "light" legs day which consisted of 5x5 squats without increasing the weight from where I was last time, nothing too strenuous. Then I did lots of walking lunges with a barbell on my back, a strongman log locked out overhead followed by box jumps. Broke my record for box jump height, don't know how high it was but I'd guess about 40 inches. Then hit my shoulders hard.

No more than 10 seconds? I agree about stretches not hurting, but I have always held my stretches for about 20-30 seconds. I never used to feel limbered up after stretching and it ended up being because I held my stretches for no more than 5-10 seconds and pushed them to the point of extreme discomfort. Now I go much easier on the range of motion, for longer time, and I find it works much better. I thought that this was the common "correct" way. Most of my workouts involve lifting heavy weights though, are shorter stretches more appropriate for running? It's approximate, but just a general rule I've always stuck to for a pre-workout stretch. Post workout I go for longer (closer to 30 seconds) and use PNF stretching when possible for hamstrings, particularly after a workout on the rowing machine but it generally requires a partner. This is quite an interesting article that describes a bit more. My auntie introduced me to PNF stretching as a way to quickly improve hamstring flexibility (she's a ballet dancer, so they do shedloads of this kind of stuff) and it's used a lot in rowing anyway. I was probably a little bit too prescriptive actually when saying no more than 10 seconds, it's a lot more approximate than I made out. The main thing is not to bounce into or stretch beyond your range of motion. But as a rule of thumb with stretching, often less is more.

It is, but it's also bloody tough here :wink: Cambridge doesn't offer any straight science courses, instead you apply for Natural Sciences which forces you to take four options in the first year to keep breadth (I took physics, maths, geology and evolution & behaviour) then specialise in later years, so this year I'm just doing physics and maths. It's a fantastic system because it means you can study four sciences in your first year at degree level, but that makes it pretty tough, very competitive and so if you just want physics there might be better unis. Imperial College, Durham and a few others are all pretty solid for physics. I think Leeds has a nice astrophysics course but I didn't apply there.

Don't just stretch for longer, particularly pre-workout. Stretching a cold muscle is a delicate operation, and it's easy to damage the muscle. Stretches shouldn't really hurt, and don't hold them for more than 10 seconds before a workout/run.

It sounds more likely that you have particularly inflexible hamstrings which may have shortened a lot due to lots of sitting (a common problem). Stretches, like the one's shown here are probably a good way to combat that. However, since you don't want to stretch a weak muscle doing a little bit of strengthening would be good too. Do squats with the heaviest dumbbells you can manage, walking lunges with weights in each hand, weighted good mornings and box jumps. Legs are hard to hit with just dumbbells but some basic conditioning should be all you need so it's not a problem. In theory you should be able to run without having to do any weight training, it's a natural movement which isn't so removed from walking that your muscles wouldn't be used to it. However clearly you're having trouble so stretches and strengthening are worth a shot.

Monday was my first day back at the gym since coming back from holiday. Hit the legs and chest pretty hard. Tuesday was the rowing machine, 30 seconds 30 seconds off x 30, 100% 2k watt average. First erg since probably May(!) and hurt like hell but managed to hold a split that would put me on course for a 7.05 2k which I'm pleased with, gives me a good base to go sub 7 by the start of next term. Had a fairly [bleep] outing in a four Tuesday evening on the lake, we were being coxed by some French international rower but her English wasn't too great so she couldn't coach us that well. Thursday was back to the gym for a lighter legs day (lots of weighted walking lunges, box jumps etc.) and shoulders. Had a better outing yesterday evening. Rested today and hopefully going to get to the gym tomorrow for another weights session (more legs and back work, deadlifts, cleans etc.) then another hellish AT erg on Sunday. Great to get back into it!

Good work to everyone getting results, uni is a blast, you'll love it. Was a nice change not having the results day stress this year though!

Aladdin Sane by David Bowie Bowie's weird, but I'm determined to get into him one day.

You make some big claims so I thread through your posts. You've corrected maybe one or two points on this forum from what I can see and the rest of your posts here are nothing that revelatory so I don't see what you're making such a fuss about. Yeah there's a little bit of bad advice being thrown about on here but there's also a lot of good advice from guys like Bloodstain, Myweponsg00d and others No I'm not going to post pictures (not my style) and I don't see why you expect others to to prove any credentials. It assumes the best coaches are the best athletes, when any real athlete will tell you the best coaches are the ones who just tried really, really hard. I'd take Mark Rippetoe's advice over Ronnie Coleman's any day. Your bodybuilding style might work for some people but it certainly isn't the only way and I've found in most cases is an ineffective way for teenagers (like the majority of people asking for advice here) to achieve the goals they want. Aesthetically based programs rarely work well for young hard-gainers and give people unrealistic expectations of what their body can do at that age. In short, I don't see why you're acting all elitist about your advice over ours, your pictures don't exactly look anything special and none of the advice I've read you give is anything more in depth than I could read in Men's Health magazine next to their monthly articles about how to get six-pack abs in x number of weeks. If you want to give out advice and discuss these things, great, join us in all the other threads but please don't pretend you're "the real deal" or something because I'm not seeing it.

Is it really surprising that America has contingency plans for offensive action against one of the most dangerous nations in the world? If they had to respond quickly to a new Iranian threat it wouldn't be much good them cobbling together a military plan at the last minute. They'll have these kind of contingency plans for military action in a surprising amount of countries, of course they don't admit to having them because it wouldn't be good for diplomatic relations but they've got them and so does every other main country. It's pretty standard procedure.

This is all entirely opinion, since almost by definition a soul is something non-physical and so is beyond science being able to investigate. I'm an empiricist, talking about the soul makes for some nice literature and poetry, and provides a useful way of summarising a person's spirituality, but I see absolutely no reason to actually believe in the existence of one. And if I was comfortable talking about the soul of a human in a metaphorical sense, I'd be equally happy talking about the soul of an animal.

What's your routine like? What kind of exercises are you doing at the moment and what are you stuck on? Are you doing periodised training at the moment or just linear gains? Without more details it's hard to suggest how to break the plateau. Although when it comes to bench, core strength is a long neglected factor. Stuff like planks, bridges, side planks etc. We do loads for rowing training and it's something that can be strengthened very quickly with just 5-10 mins work every day.

...again. :razz: Yeah Schlek did really well, I think he might get it next year. It's been a great Tour.

You can always tell a new lifter or one that hasn't been to the gym in a while because they complain about not being to walk down stairs, or move their arms the next day or something. Your body will adapt to lifting more with less soreness but that doesn't mean the workout wasn't effective. I'm all in favour of changing up a routine a bit (vary repetitions, the exercises used for various body parts etc.) to break plateaus but not being really sore the next few days isn't a plateau, I wouldn't worry about it.