>>>>>> That doesn't explain charitable donations for Haiti/Pakistani etc. relief.
>>>>>The above goes a long way to giving a plausible explanation.
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>
>>>I said plausible not simple so I'm not sure I can summarize very easily..
>>>
>>>You seem to accept that altruism works on a tribal level and has proven itself over many thousands of years to be beneficial to species survival (this doesn't just apply to humans)
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>The manifestation of altruism in humans is compassion/pity (or other subjective nouns of your choice)
>>
>>That's a bit of a leap, IMO.
>
>I missed out a few steps along the way :-}
>
>>Behaviour indistinguishable from "compassion/pity" can be exhibited by those who are merely lazy, or even amoral if they are embedded within a larger society or culture that places value on those behaviours.
>
>In an alruistic society it is very easy for a small majority to behave in selfish manner (which is really what you are describing above) and to be very successful as individuals. But in the longer term it is members of the altruistic majority that thrive.
>
>>>Once you are genetically programmed to have these feelings then you do not control who should be the benificiaries.
>>>(Well OK - I'll make an exception for Bill :-} )
>>
>>An even bigger leap.
>
>Again I missed out some steps of logic...
>
>>To ask just one superficial question, are you saying one can't distinguish between tribe/non-tribe in considering beneficiaries?
>
>No. Of course we can consiously make the distinction - and choose to behave differently accordingly. But the underlying natural inclination is normally to offer help.
>But don't forget that the root of this argument is that being altruistic is still a form of selfishness - there's an underlying expectation that you will receive benefit in return.

I've probably been assigning a negative connotation to the word "selfishness" in this discussion. I think if we replace "selfishness" with "rational behaviour" I can agree with most of what you've been saying.