To what degree is Evolutionary Psychology successful in providing Essay

To what degree is Evolutionary Psychology successful in providing reductive explanations of human behaviour - Essay Example Jealous rages, for instance can easily be justified as a means to protect reproductive access and ensure that your own resources only go to your own offspring; protecting your own investment. (Buss, 2000), (Downes, 2001) Many anti-social behaviors can be justified in the interest of mere individial prosperity in a world of nature 'red in tooth and claw' as it were. Base survival for one organism is not sufficient for long-term evolutionary success. Those that most influence future generations genetically would then exhibit behavioral mechanisms that encourage efficient transmission of their genes, and maximize survival of offspring; which often means, in a context of limited resources hostility against one's own kind.Extremes of this behavior can be found in species ranging from polar bears to mice, where death of newborns at the hands of competing males is instinctual, so that one's own offspring have priority access to the resources of survival. (Derocher, et al. 1999) But in contr ast, any discussion of evolutionary psychology and its reductionary behavioral 2 implications would of course be incomplete without a discussion concerning altruism. Altruistic behaviors can find many justifications for communal species, including herd/flock animals and social insects. Assisting in the survival of the group will help one's fellows to survive; should that trait become established in the population it will foster a social structure that permits the survival of more members. Should multiple instances of a social-altruist trait become extant in the population, each instance should create a compounded likelihood of preserving itself. But that is the difficulty; getting multiple instances of that trait at the same time. In the long-run, the premise of advantage via co-survival appears supportable. But one must ask the question, if a wildebeast evolves with a strong instinct to protect others of its herd, that trait might not become extant in the population because such an organism would logically protect other members regardless of whether they share his altrusitic feelings; thereby a gene that triggers that behavior could also be beneficial to organisms which lack that gene. Which would seem to work against its own self-perpetuation. In large populations that lack altruism that outcome seems much more probable, that the lonely, good-samaritan organism must help his uncaring fellows, while at the same time still competing with them for food and mates. It may benefit the herd, but will be a detriment to that individual. It is easy then, to understand herd-animals that do not necessarily respond with any altrusitic tendencies that would put themselves at risk. Yes, swimming in a school makes it more difficult for a shark to focus on a single fish; but no member of that school will put itself at risk to try and coax a fellow out of a hazard, or confront a predator. When the lion approaches, all gazelles will run, although, if they were each to attack i n mass, it is probable they could kill a single lion; yet there would be no individual advantage for the gazelle that first manifests genes encouraging that trait. He would most likely become the one that was eaten before he could reproductively spread his valor to the rest of the population. What is needed then, in that case is a