Both author and lecturer discuss whether the behavior of meerkat and humans is altruistic. The former argues in favor using three reasons whereas, the latter contradicts each of these points.
First of all, the reading claims the behavior of one meerkat who guards the group is purely altruistic, as others hunt for food and eat while he stays guarding them against predators. However, the listening rebuts as the standing guard is the one who gets to eat first before starting to guard. In addition, the standing guard is always full irrespective of other group members as they might or mightn't catch prey to feed on.
Second of all, the author asserts when the standing guard sees the predator then it signals other group members by putting itself at risk, as it might be the last one to flee. On the other hand, the lecturer counters the standing guard is always near the burrow and has a higher chance to escape upon seeing the predators. Furthermore, the alarm can cause other group members to gather or move about, eventually, risking their lives.
Finally, the text mentions humans donating their kidneys to their relatives or stranger is altruistic as they gain nothing in return. In contrast, the lecture argues the kidney donor receives appreciation and approval from society which increases the person's worth in society which cannot be compared with anything and is likely worth more than almost everything.