In the lecture, the speaker makes several points about altruism what are quite different in the reading article.
To begin with, the lecturer claims that the the meerkats are not altruists after close observation by the scientists which oppose the contents, the guard meerkats are always considered to be victims, mentioned in the reading material. From the lecturer, we know that the guard meerkats eat before they stand guard to look out for predators. They have a full stomach. And also the lecturer mentioned those who hunt for food outside is in real danger while the article tells us that those are quite safe.
In addition ,the lecturer tells us that the guard meerkats are the most safe one. From the passage we know that the author think the guard meerkat is in great danger because he flee alone. From the lecurer we know that they stand beside the burrows so if they discover the predator they can flee into the burrows at once after giving the alarm to his partners. And when the big group of meerkats are escaping away, they can easily attract the predator’s attention which will bring safe to the lonely guard meerkat. This perspective differs from what is maintained in the article.
Furthermore, the lecturer also opposes the author’s attitude toward human beings. In the passage we know that those people who donate their organs to other gain nothing to themselves but benefit others. On the contrary, about the same topic, the lecturer think they will accept non-material things,for example,appreciation from the society and self-worth, etc. which is valuable. So they do gain something. This is where the speaker disagree with the author.
In sum, all the above evidence of the lecture illustrate that the lecturer disagree with the points mentioned in the reading materials.