Deep thoughts indeed.

Initially, I have to disagree with the statements that "humans, like other animals, are generally incapable of acting in a truly altruistic manner" and "evolution will quickly eliminate any truly altruistic propensities because a truly altruistic act by definition does not benefit and may harm the actor..." I think this may be overestimating the power of evolution, or at least its current advancement. Even if we assume that altruism is a trait evolution would gradually remove, that does not mean it has removed it yet. Perhaps altruism is our behavioral appendix. Or perhaps, like the appendix, it does something beneficial we aren't aware of.

Putting that initial disagreement to the side, I agree with part of your (Jonathan's) observation re: assessment of random vs. nonrandom behavior, quoted below:

"Perhaps it is more accurate to say that humans are calculating; behavior is not random."

I think it is important to add, and perhaps you agree, that to the extent people act nonrandomly they might not actually know of all the motives behind their action (they might simply be incorrect about their motives). In other words, saying behavior is not random does not foreclose the possibility that behavior is intentional but serving motives unknown to the person.

So, even if altruism does not in fact exist and all those claiming their actions were altruistic were in fact actually serving some other internal motive (e.g. Brett's observation that "an action may appear altruistic in one sense, e.g., lack of immediate revenue generation[,] but in fact may not be an altruistic action [because you gain something else of value later]"), why wouldn't this false-altruism still be sufficient incentive for future creations? Supposing I agree with Brett that "Even in a zero marginal cost world, there must be incentives for the initial creation of the first product[,]" couldn't other motives, even if perceived incorrectly as altruism, be sufficient --- e.g. the author created in hopes of getting attention? Or for fun or amusement? Isn't that what most garage bands exist for?

I suppose I also wonder why changing from "some compensation" as a model to "much less compensation" necessarily means insufficient incentives. I do not get the sense we are talking here about paying authors/artists/etc. zero to create - if that is the proposed model, I would appreciate being corrected.

At the moment, I am still considering this model; my questions above are mostly trying to understand your (Brett's and Jonathan's) positions. My concern - and I leave it to be addressed at a later date when the class course reaches it - is what model we will use to provide adequate incentives for things like pharmaceuticals. I look forward to the readings addressing that point; they appear to be near.

-- BrianS - 27 Sep 2009