In the lecture the professor told that the meerkat group was
observed very closely than before. Then some interesting facts came out which
oppose the arguments made in the passage.
Firstly, the meerkat who stand as guard eats before its
work. So, being in full stomach it has no need of food any more. Therefore, not
taking food as stated in the passage is not altruism.
Secondly, when the guard meerkat cries an alarm upon
approaching a predator then the sentinel has the greater possibility to escape
as it sees the predator first. Moreover, when the meerkat group hears the alarm
then they will gather together or scatter. So, they will catch the attention of
predator putting themselves in danger. Therefore, actually the group of meerkat
are in danger when predator comes. This also opposes the altruistic behavior of
the sentinel.
Finally, the group of meerkat not the sentinel go in search
of food which also is dangerous for them. Now, it can be told that the sentinel
is nowhere altruistic.
There are example of human being also in the lecture. In the
passage it has been mentioned that, when a person donates his/her body part
selflessly then it can be an instance of altruism. But the professor opposed
this point saying that the donor achieves much appreciation and recognition
from the acceptor as well as from society. So, the donor is actually getting something
which may be non-material, and that's why this cannot be regarded as pure
altruism.
No comments:
Post a Comment