> However one must be quite civilized and have high quality of life and standard of living to exercise altruism.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of people that have nothing that still devote time/money into helping others before themselves.
I hate to reference the Bible, but there was a parable in there about a woman donating 2 cents to the poor verses wealthy men donating piles of money (I think this was 'bags of silver pieces or something like that). She gave more than they did if you consider the percentage of their total assets/worth that was donated.
I wouldn't rely on poor people's altruism as on a valuable contribution to others. Even if giving those 2 cents was an important decision for the woman considering her poorness, the piles given out by a richer man were much more valuable. It is absolute value of a contribution that matters for a receiver of good here.
That may be, but the original statement said that one needed to be 'rich' to exercise altruism, and despite the downmodding of my previous comment that point still stands.
Not necessarily. There are plenty of people that have nothing that still devote time/money into helping others before themselves.
I hate to reference the Bible, but there was a parable in there about a woman donating 2 cents to the poor verses wealthy men donating piles of money (I think this was 'bags of silver pieces or something like that). She gave more than they did if you consider the percentage of their total assets/worth that was donated.