Western Thought like clear cut, yes or no, single answers. Reality is nothing like that. We are "all the above", and our actions are calculated from a very complex evaluation.

I understood everything u wrote and I feel it , but don't have great knowledge and words to write something of great value / knowledge back . But I can say that I am selfish in my level / life . I don't have much but I do have more than others yet is not like I make a priority every week to give to the hungry or homeless or sick . I care more to have my espresso / hair conditioner / pay bills / food / whatever than what other humans might need that I can provide . I don't do much volunteering any more either , and even when I was , the left over of my time , not a priority . I care for the ones around me but those are humans and animals that love me so I guess I get something out of it and that doesn't count . The most I am thinking this , yes , I am a selfish ape people for some reason think of nurses as heroes or blah blah blah , and I think that's wrong . We get paid , and very well , to care and treat for people in distress . I guess nothing nobble . Now that I am thinking , when without make up and after 19 hrs shift , yep , Ape !

Our natural instinct is self preservation but we're evolved enough to overcome that, if we want to. The only exception I can think of, that overcomes self preservation is the bond between parent and child. However, even in some parents that's hit or miss. Possibly the instinct to protect you're mate arises but even that is not constant.

Brilliant post ... is this a dissertation? In all seriousness, while I clearly am not an anthropologist, I don't believe selfish apes would necessarily have had a survival advantage over cooperative (even self-sacrificing) apes. In fact, there are indications that group cohesion suffers when the dominant behavior involves 'self' over 'group.' Incidentally, I am not a big fan of Machiavelli, as you might assume.

Briefly, I found your Exhibit B very intriguing. While I recognize that the development of the whites of the eye (and associated muscles enabling movement) could support an agenda of deceit, it could just as easily support survival. For instance, a physically dominant group lacking the ability to indicate their intentions without turning their heads, would be at a disadvantage when confronting a group who could, with a mere glance, collaborate on defensive maneuvers and countermeasures.

Finally, I agree with your conclusion. Namely, that nature would have selected for functional groups and the pooling and transmittal of useful knowledge. But let us consider one final factor, or modality--self sacrifice (i.e., martyrdom). An inherently selfish (and likely cowardly) group would be at a disadvantage when confronting an interwoven group dedicated to the long-term survival of the community. A group with a 'warrior-like' ethic, in which individuals were ready and willing to sacrifice themselves for the survival of their group, could most certainly prevail over the inherently selfish ones.

No. Now give me all your bananas. But no seriously some interesting thoughts. I think our traits have proven to be a unique compromise between our two closest relatives, chimps and bonobos. Chimps are violent, territorial, jealous, competitive, sexually arrogant and possessive etc. males, being much larger than than females treat the females like property. Bonobo troops are dominated by the similarly sized females influencece, they exhibit homosexuality and use sex to greet and treat the males. They adapted and learned to use sex to diffuse fights rather than to fuel competition and they open up their territory between troops more often. promiscuity informed their morality because if you don’t know whose kids belong to whom, then you raise all the young as a unified village and males are less likely to kill offspring to initiate more breeding, because it might already be theirs. Dr Chris Ryan has a great podcast Tangentially Speaking and a couple books Sex at Dawn and Civilized to death talking about our morality from an anthropological standpoint, pretty fascinating.

One of the key differences between man and other animals is other animals adapt to their environment while man is unique in often adapting his environment to himself. It's a paradigm shift that can play havoc with adapting evolutionary models within anthropological frameworks.

Von Neumann and Morgenstern's Theory of Games and Economic Behavior [archive.org] suggests that behavior is much more subtle than the either/or model you propose... as does Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene.

There are times when it pays to be altruistic (or selfless, if you prefer). There are times when it pays to be selfish. Most of the time it pays to be a little of each. We strike a balance between looking out for personal interest and looking out for the interest of our gene pool. In many cases this is our extended gene pool, and sometimes even merely a gene pool that is similar to our own gene pool. We risk our own life to save that of a stranger. Sometimes, we risk our life to save a member of another species- a being that cannot conceivably be of our gene pool or a related gene pool. That is the epitome of selflessness. This is not the norm, which is why we call those people "heroes"- and yet it's a model most of us aspire to and hope we would live up to when the time came.

Most of the time, we unconsciously (or subconsciously) calculate a risk/reward equation constantly in our interactions with others; what will be the result of our actions? Very rarely do these calculations intrude on the thought process of most people... they just go through life on autopilot, acting and reacting and then being terribly surprised when things don't go as they expected.

No, now give me that banana!

To some degree, everything I do is selfish. Even when it's a sacrifice, something about it makes me feel good. I think it's possible to do something for someone else when it doesn't necessarily feel good, at least not consciously, but it still fits within some value system that is in some sense satisfying.

We are not apes. We just share a common ancestor. Actually, humans are more selfish than apes and we might learn a lot from apes.

My personal opinion is that it varies from person to person. I think on the whole, we tend to be more altruistic than selfish for all of the reasons you have so thoughtfully outlined above, but I have met exceptions to the rule. Men who adore and model their behavior after Machiavelli (some of whom are blatantly proud of it), women who lie and manipulate, often using their sexuality or gender to play the part of the helpless damsel in distress to get what they want. I do my best to avoid such people, I think they are psychotic.

On the other hand, I also think my trusting nature is my biggest personal flaw. Discernment is a critical skill that is not always well taught.

I guess I am not only a selfish ape but a lazy one too...refuse to read all that

I think we are insane apes. But I do think we are selfish also. But then I do not think being selfish is always a bad thing. I think the true poison of humanity is willful ignorance. Like denying climate change and our role in it. Or pretending that some God justifies ones weakness because we can't help being assholes because of Satan and the fall. Or letting your kid die because God. Or yourself for that matter.

Apes, for the most part, are NOT selfish beings, YES they do have a Social Status/Pecking Order system BUT they are nowhere near as selfish as ever so many humans are and can be.
Having said that, I'd also posit that in all my years of dealing people I have found that, in my opinion and WITHOUT bias, Atheists are far less selfish, socially caring and community aware people than those who have a religious tendency.

It is very complicated, evolution and the nature of life provides that humans may be motivated in many ways. We may be selfish, family/group altruistic, wish to appear altruistic even when we are not for selfish or group gain, be truly altruistic which may be an error, or seek simple mutual benefit, while a lot of our actions may just be neutral, motivated by unthinking habit for example, and all of these motives are not exclusive but usually overlap and reinforce each other. Moreover while what is selfish may appear altruistic, it is also true that what is altruistic may often seem selfish in the eyes of others; and you must not forget the great power of self delusion, that we are capable of believing we are acting for one reason when our real motivations are quite else, it is not just others who may mistake our motives. This is why ideologies such as Christianity and Marxism, which claim to be totally altruistic, always come in the end to produce the greatest social injustices where the religious and political establishments enrich themselves at the expense of the poor while still claiming, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, to act for the greatest good of all; since of course they do not allow for any of this. Such are the things which make human politics so difficult or interesting however you choose to see it.

The short answer is yes.

All actions have motive at some level, the fact that we can act beyond our own self interest is not unique in nature. Acting to the benefit of people who cannot reciprocate, people we will never meet is our greatest strength. Allowing our "better nature" to come forth and guide our actions is one of the great beauties of life.

all this doublespeak by anthropologist intelligentsia ignores basic family life observations.....humans nurture.... women, though raped and oppressed continue to nurture.... and males become men when they just say no to religion, rape, greed, war and stick close to home protecting spouse and relatives despite "selfish" temptations of monetarist patriarchal fascist shamanistic societies

You clearly haven't lived in my neighborhood.

i am certainly selfish (who else would do the job for me?), but don't consider myself an ape.

Some of us are altruistic apes.

Interesting topic, can't argue with your conclusions.

No, we are selfish and unselfish apes.

"Are we all basically selfish apes?"

Yes.

Yes, we are horrible selfish apes. The worst animals on the planet.

I did not read all the pint of your evidence - sorry.
the simple thing is that existence is a simple case of economics of calories. If we don't eat ore calories than our bodies consume we are dying - ultimately dead. and it's not only calories - deficiencies of any king, may it be iron, iodine, calcium etc. all lead toward the same failure of life case.

So moral don't have anything to do with it. Sure there are different personality types......

the more advanced moralistic behavior is because of the advanced ability to abstract, not in spite of it.

in a social species capable of such machiavellan thought, those who truly feel guilt and shame are less likely to get caught, ergo have a survival advantage. these emotional motivations are the result of a long string of variational changes within the mechanisms behind social behaviors in other primates, as well as partially a product of the type of abstraction we are capable of. "when others aren't watching" is harder to apply to a species capable of recognizing evidence and logically deducing a culprit even when there are no willing witnesses.

so, no, we are not "merely" selfish apes. we are...ape 2.0. selfish with a layer of reinforcement mechanisms to offset some of the selfishness in order to gain cooperative advantage.

when you look at some of these mechanisms, though, in deeper analysis you'll find that many are actually supporting the selfishness underneath. By being truly ashamed, we gain approval. Insincere apologies don't get as much forgiveness as sincere ones, and are much harder to fake in a species wired with an ability to judge each others motivations. Altruism gains us "social points", so that even if the subject of our altruism is unable to repay the favor, others within the society will view us as "good" and treat us better. they are not consciously selfish, or machiavellan in nature, but are background mechanisms that allow us to reap the greatest benefit for us or our progeny.

And cooperating to build a better, safer, or more enriched society for all by definition includes me and my offspring. Mechanisms which support cooperation are good for ME, not just society, because society is the framework in which I must live.