If I understood correctly, the evolutionary biologist's criticism against group selection is that the group selection of individuals who sacrifice their own fitness for the fitness of the group, would not work, as their genes will quickly be out-competed by cheaters.
Modern discourse about genetics isn't an ivory tower exercise where you can reason your way to the right answer without looking at empiric reality.
Would you say this competition doesn't exist, and that groups didn't go extinct during the course of history because other groups were more successful?
I'm not sure what "group" goes extinct is supposed to mean. Species go extinct or not.
without looking at empiric reality.
The empiric reality I'm looking at is that during the course of human history there were many groups, tribes, nations, civilizations which disappeared, and there are several in existence now, which might soon disappear if current trends continue. I doubt it would be too illogical to say that it was not only random chance, but it also played a role what values and goals those groups had, and how did those work out in comparison with the values and goals of other groups.
I'm not sure what "group" goes extinct is supposed to mean. Species go extinct or not.
Sorry for not being pedantic enough.
This sort of thinking seems bad:
This sort of thinking seems socially frowned upon, but accurate:
Similar points could be made by replacing a/b with [group of people]. I think it's terrible to say something like:
But to me, it doesn't seem wrong to say something like:
Credit and accountability seem like good things to me, and so I want to live in a world where people/groups receive credit for good qualities, and are held accountable for bad qualities.
I'm not sure though. I could see that there are unintended consequences of such a world. For example, such "score keeping" could lead to contentiousness. And perhaps it's just something that we as a society (to generalize) can't handle, and thus shouldn't keep score.