The lecture disagreed with the claims made in the reading passage. Although both of them explain about altruism, that consist of acts of selfless, the lecturer believes that the main examples used to examplify this behavior in humans and in animals groups, like Meerkats, are not correctly related.
The lecturer directly states that Meerkats who stands immovable observing and are responsible for the alert caution in case of danger, are well feeded, because they already have eaten. Besides they are in great advantage to sacape from predators, while others that are hunting are in high risk.
This directly refutes the reading passage which states that Meerkats that stand guard are in danger and in an altruistic position without hunting and in greater disadvantage when trying to scape from predators because they are running alone while the main group have great opportunite to run safety because they are in a group with a lot number of animals.
The reading passage also uses the example of humans who are organ doners as an example of an altruistic, as they are saving lives while get nothing for theselves. On the other hand, the lecturer states that the gratefulness of society and the organ receptor serve as a stimulus to donor´s self-estime and this is a great payment for this act.
In conclusion, the professor effectivelly refutes the claims in the article about examples of altruism as in both examples they are get paied in some manner and are getting some advantage of the “selfness” act.