That would probably happen many times over if the Singularity ever happens. Not six, maybe six thousand, likely more. Not real scientists literaly, but science output.

I'm with you on the selfish/altruistic part.

Hell, that's arguably the whole evolutionary point. By denigrating self-concerned behavior as selfish, and praising other-considerate behavior (altruism, or even just decency and politeness) we produce the incentives to behave in other-considerate ways. By making Schweitzer feel good when he helps people, his genes or upbringing makes him act naturally to help people, rather than scheming for his benefit. He might behave as if (the great economic caveat) he was scheming for his enlightened self-interest, but his motivations as a person are basically altruistic.

Where'd this discussion come from? Oh right, Christopher saying the core of human nature is selfishness. Wrong, and Greta's right. The core of genetic nature is selfishness. But those genes have produced mechanisms which produce a mix of selfish and altruistic behavior. The fact that the altruistic mechanisms actually -- back when we were surrounded by close relatives -- were of selfish genetic benefit, is irrelevant. We still have the mechanisms, even when surrounded by distant relatives, or unrelated animals, and they still work, thus are as much part of human nature as our greed and territoriality.

As for the callousness of there always being someone dying of plague or starvation -- yeah, how many Americans or Europeans are dying of those? Hardly any. They can be beaten, and it's an odd combination of pessimism and optimism to say "those are unsolvable problems, let's work on beating death instead."

And, well, there's self-interest. Non-desperate people are less likely to steal your wealth. Educated and healthy people part of the trade and science networks can speed up development and thus bring your transhumanist or Singularity future faster. What if we had six times as many scientists and engineers working on problems?

But extrapolating that logic to the individual level is completely bogus thinking. It does not follow that altruistic behavior does not exist in the individual level (even if that behavior is selfish on the gene level) and that it's not better then selfishness and not something to strive for.

But even if your thinking was all correct - which I don't think it is - your comment about the Singularity also is incorrect when you say it's all about selfishness and we should channel our selfish tendencies. If you understand the implications of the Singularity, it follows that it will probably the ultimate altruistic event, and work out the solution to the problems Adam pointed to, whether he likes and/or believes in the event or not.

PS: Go get yourself a copy of the Selfish Gene. I you have already read it, go read it again.

What this shows is that there's no way to deny the existence of altruistic behavior in humans - unless you redefine the word so that nothing, by definition, could count as altruism.

How about this. Selfish behavior can at times maximize mutual benefit and altruistic behavior can at times cause mutual hardship. Neither one is necessarily better than the other. Natural selection balances out the two memes in a given population to best cope with environmental factors. But at heart, they are both driven by the reward of being favored by natural selection. At heart they are both selfish memes, apart from how the meme expresses itself.

CS Lewis struggled with these concepts and it led him to conclude, wrongly, that there must be higher morality that comes from an external source. But more than a century before him, David Ricardo (an economist) came up with the theory of comparative advantage that neatly explains this whole conundrum. The mistake we make is to think that selfishness means there is no cooperation. But as Ricardo demonstrated, 2 selfish agents can reach mutual benefit via trade. On the other hand, altruistic cooperation does not guarantee reciprocity. In fact it's kind of silly to think about that - doing something altruistically and hoping for something in return doesn't make sense. If we operated solely on altruism, then would we ever have a workable concept of justice?

Sometimes, altruism is needed. Many economists believe that we stand to gain the biggest economic gains by investing money in developing countries rather than industrialized ones. In other words, selfishly investing on Wall Street gives us a lower benefit overall than investing in places like Kenya. But this is a short run / long run issue. It's altruistic to invest in Kenya in the short run, but in the long run the benefit in trade will justify the altruism in selfish terms. Pretty much all the altruism that I can think of can be explained in selfish terms. It's almost like polar and cartesian coordinates are useful in their own ways but really they're interchangeable systems that can describe the same things.

If you're going to define the word "selfish" as any and all behavior that benefits you even in the slightest — even if that gain is only that you get a marginal increase in social status, or that you get to privately feel like a good person — then that makes the word "selfish" pretty much meaningless. It's basically re-defining the word "selfish" as "voluntary."

What this shows is that there's no way to deny the existence of altruistic behavior in humans - unless you redefine the word so that nothing, by definition, could count as altruism.

a) It's absurd to say that, because people can sometimes be selfish, therefore altruism isn't real;

b) it's absurd to argue that, because motives are often mixed, with both selfish and altruistic impulses behind them and with altruism having a selfish component to it, therefore the selfish part of that motivation is the "real" one and the altruism is false;

c) it's absurd to argue that, because eveyone has at least somewhat selfish motivations and it can be difficult to distinguish between selfishness and altruism, therefore there is no difference in selfishness between, say, Albert Schweitzer and Donald Trump.

And I think that's my main point. If you're going to define the word "selfish" as any and all behavior that benefits you even in the slightest -- even if that gain is only that you get a marginal increase in social status, or that you get to privately feel like a good person -- then that makes the word "selfish" pretty much meaningless. It's basically re-defining the word "selfish" as "voluntary."

And I think there is a difference between the selfishness of Albert Schweitzer and the selfishness of Donald Trump. Look at definition of the word "selfish" (here's Merriam Webster):

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others (a selfish act)

This is a useful word. It's a useful idea, a useful distinction to make. And please note that the definition doesn't say "concerned with oneself; seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being; arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage." The key words are "excessively or exclusively," "without regard for others," "in disregard of others."

That's what makes the difference between Albert Schweitzer and Donald Trump. And it's absurd to act as if, because Schweitzer did what he did for reasons of his own, because he found it satisfying, therefore there is no useful distinction to be drawn between his motivations and Trump's.

If people want to behave selfishly - i.e., concerned excessively or exclusively with themselves without regard for others -- I doubt that I can argue them out of it. I just wish they'd stop fooling themselves into believing that everyone else is really just like them and simply won't admit it. Everyone else is not just like you. There are people in the world who care about other people, who have empathy for them, who want to make the world better for everyone and not just for themselves. And the world is a better place because of it. Yes, the care for other people is mixed with self-care. But that doesn't negate it. The fact that you are missing out on a fundamental human experience is no reason to deny that experience's very existence.

I've heard the arguments for altruism, and have found them unconvincing as they all draw the same conclusion: the source of the "altruistic" behavior evolved as a mechanism through which one might preserve his genes (ex. one man sacrificing himself to save family) - but this is, in and of itself, a selfish motive! Even though the indivual in question may sacrifice something, he does gain something else in return for the "selfless" act.

While contemporary society considers selfishness a vice, I see it as a redeeming virtue to our nature - something to be proud of rather than hide in shame! As I see it, the transhumanist movement is merely the logical conclusion to a life lived selfishly and I say more power to them - as I ultimately wish to reap the benefits of such a society myself...

Indeed, there is such as thing as "selfish alturim" (reciprocial alturism), and while it is hardwired into us, I think that I should be addressed that there's nothing wrong with being selfish, it just all depends on the degree. Those who created the vaccines, while I'm not sure how much money there is to made of such things, also come with a great deal of social status. It's not as if those who created the vaccines mailed it in to a medical center in annonimity; they gave others what they wanted and benefitted as well.
Everyone is selfish to a certain degree, and that can do a whole lot of good for others, but pure alturism would never survive genetically. Any organism that constantly operates at a loss while others operate at a gain are likely to be bred out of the population in a real hurry.

Just wanted to add that.