Good and Evil

[Cirdan]

Many genes that can be traced to behaviors do not effect or impinge on reproduction. If the behavior is very intermittant (murder, the heroic sacrifice, etc) then it is very unlikely that it can be deselected. Instead of selecting for the ideal survivability, nature tends to select for maximum adaptability and all the other variations are brought along fo the ride, as long as they are not fatal or anti-reproductive. In other words, genomes happen. Only under the most rigorous and stressful conditions (high mortality in the population) are yoiu likely to get significant selection. Very sucessful species like humans tolerate a wide variety of useless and even detrimental genomic phenotypes.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Cirdan
If the behavior is very intermittant (murder, the heroic sacrifice, etc) then it is very unlikely that it can be deselected. Instead of selecting for the ideal survivability, nature tends to select for maximum adaptability and all the other variations are brought along fo the ride, as long as they are not fatal or anti-reproductive.

Why do you say murder and heroic sacrifice cannot be deselected? Are you saying the genes have no choice but to accept things that are detrimental to them?

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Why do you say murder and heroic sacrifice cannot be deselected? Are you saying the genes have no choice but to accept things that are detrimental to them?

Take the case of arthritis. This is definitely a genetic condition and not one that is desirable under any circumstance. It has no effect on reproduction since it occurs later in life. Murder and heroic sacrifice are similarly low in the impact on reproduction since the ability to reproduce is more likely to reveal prior to the other behaviors.

The other problems with the behaviors referred to is that the motivations for each vary. Few murder or sacrifice as automatons. The hero may want to help the herd, or may want to improve social standing, or may just be suicidal, stupid or reckless. How different in biology is killing for defense and for rage (or all the other many various reasons ever identified in the history or human existance)? And yet we experience these differently and they are differently motivated. The problem is that there are gray areas between all behaviors and the extremes, while making a clearer case, do not explain the full range of similar behaviors.

[Lief Erikson]

However, there is reason to believe that genetics have little to do with the actual decision making. As you posted when giving that article earlier.

The evidence against it is strong; althought genetics give a tendency toward something, they don't force the action. A person might have a natural tendency to be a hero, but if he happens to be brought up to believe his own life to be more important than other people's, he'll end up believing that. He won't be a hero. And someone might be inclined toward pacifism, but if they're brought up in a suicide bomber training camp, I'd wager that they'll end up being a suicide bomber. People's genetics really have nothing to do with their final outcome; there are huge effects upon an individual from exterior sources.

[Lief Erikson]

You know what? I don't think this debate is getting anywhere.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
What genes, then, would decide to become the sacraficial lamb? In other words, what genes would decide to do something for themselves that's against what the current environment dictates they should do?

I don’t really understand your question. The genes don’t decide to do anything. If you are born with genes that make it more likely that youll be a hero then that’s what youll be in most situations. If the environment favors heroes then you will tend to benefit. If the environment does not favor heroes then you will most likely suffer.

Sure, you might say it's best for the species that there be a balance, but it seems to me that the genes that are least likely to enable the creature to survive well would logically be turned off.

No, genes don’t turn themselves “off�. Genes just are. If they are bad genes for that particular environment then that’s to the detriment of that specific individual and chances are that individual wont do as well as other individuals better suited (genetically) for that particular environment. And its not best for the species that there be a balance. Its best for each individual in the population that there is. There is always an ideal ratio between types of individuals. The scientific term for this is STABLE POLYMORPHISM. It’s a natural state in all populations.

However, these genes seem to make the decision that it's best that they take their worse options so that the species will benefit. They select for themselves things that work against them, to benefit the rest of the species. Does this make sense?

No you are just misunderstanding the concept here that’s all. And I explained extensively how altruism can be a benefit to the individual previously. It works out very well mathematically even. But let me try again. You have a population of individuals (and we will use our previous example again) where you have a mixture of heroes and cowards. A hero when faced with a dangerous situation where a fellow tribe member is in danger always acts to the benefit of the tribe member despite the risk. The coward never acts to the benefit of the other tribe member if there is any danger involved. Now what are the benefits and disadvantages of both types:

HERO BENEFIT
-fellow tribe member stays alive which is a benefit to the hero because the loss of any member from the tribe is to the detriment of the tribe and therefore to the detriment of the individual.
-heroes gain rank and resources by being successfully heroic.
-if a hero saves another hero it can benefit him DIRECTLY in the long run if the favor is turned.

HERO DISADVANTAGE
-hero dies
-hero is injured
COWARD BENEFIT
-coward is never killed or injured (in this action)

COWARD DISADVANTAGE
-fellow tribe member dies making it harder for population as a whole and thus for each given individual including the coward
-cowards never gain rank or resources by being heroic
-if a coward lets a hero die that’s one less hero to save him when needed

So now we can see WHY such behavior could BOTH exist in nature because there can be benefits to BOTH. Your thinking that well why would any population have more then just individuals with the most successful gene allocated behavior is essentially missing the point because BOTH behavior strategies can be successful in the same environment. One may dominate the other but through the laws of nature a stable ratio will be met. Always.

Now of course behavior in nature is MUCH more complicated then just HERO or COWARD. The variations are subtle and endless. So just saying oh this one is the best is nonsensical. Theres ALWAYS balance. I cant say this too much. But it keeps getting ignored.

[Insidious Rex]

You said that they're selfish- now you seem to be saying that they're under a law of what's best for the species as a whole.

When did I say that? I have always maintained that they are ALWAYS selfish. The fact that there are more then one type of gene in a given population is normal. It really is. I think ive explained this at least twice now. It can be a benefit to ALL parties if there are various types of genes. In much the same way that an ecosystem can work best if you have predators and carnivores and carrion eaters and even organisms that process whatever the carrion eaters leave behind. Now who would want to be that? Seems like the lowest rung on the ladder. Wouldn’t you much rather be the nice big successful predator? Well if it was ALL predators then thered be trouble because then the whole ecosystem would go out of balance TO THE DERTRIMENT OF THE PREDATORS so the hyenas and rats and fungus mold have a place. As lowly as the SEEM to us. They are necessary. Just as necessary as cowards AND heroes in a given population. No gene is choosing to be at a disadvantage at all.

Selflessness that is utterly against their nature, for it doesn't benefit themselves at all. That protection it gives benefits others, but it does nothing but hurt the individual itself.

But see this is just dead wrong. A gene does not exist in nature if it has no benefit at all to itself. AS NOTED ABOVE those different types of behavior (dictated by their genes) have both benefits and disadvantages. I don’t see how I can get more clearer then this.

Self sacrifice doesn't figure into your theory, so you're ignoring it.

Come on Leif I only explained it like three times now. Ive layed out the benefits of what you call self sacrifice. Do I really need to do it again?

How can herd instinct be stronger if selfishness is the key to creature and species survival?

Because its not? GENE selfishness is the key to GENE survival. Nothing more. But GENE selfishness does not necessarily translate into being selfish on an individual level. In fact it could mean the opposite. Always look deeper then the surface to find the truth.

And why do the genes of specific individuals choose to become the victim?

which genes are choosing to be victims in your view?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
You still haven't addressed many of the primary difficulties with your theory. Some people are extremely brave and others are extremely cowardly. Even a situation that isn't desperate might not convince someone who's cowardly to go in and help, while the brave person would be fine with doing so.

ok I believe ive explained this now in above post. Let me know if you still need clarification on how it works again.

an individual's upbringing might cause them not to reproduce, because it becomes his theology that chastity is good. People who believe in various religions don't ever reproduce, and that's got to be just maddening for their genes. They wouldn't be using their host to good advantage.

ok the reproduction thing. Lets begin. Probably the easiest way to do this is to look at the opposite extreme? Well if restraining from having children is apparently going against nature then the ideal would be to have children constantly. Because that way we would be passing on our genes to the maximum extent possible. Right? Why don’t humans have 50 kids? 100 kids? 1000? Think of all the genes!! Ok of course this is patently ridiculous because we cant raise 1000 kids. In fact, there is an equilibrium in nature or a balance (theres that word again!) that is the point at which a given organism can reproduce itself efficiently without sabotaging itself by means of OVER reproduction.

Now you may first assume that I would argue that animals restrict their litter size for altruistic reasons that would benefit the group at large. After all if I don’t have 1000 kids then the group Im in wont overwhelm its resources from all the mouths to feed. But this is a mistake. I am not practicing birth control (well that’s what it is) in order to avoid over exploiting the groups resources. I am practicing birth control in order to maximize the number of surviving children that I have. Yes! Another selfish reason.

Rearing young (and this is about both birthing AND rearing) is a costly business. The mother has to invest a large quantity of food, time and energy in manufacturing the young even before birth. She must risk her own life in actually giving birth to the young child. And the parents must put great energy and effort in creating a home (nest? Den? House?) for the young to be safe in. Then as the young grow its up to the parent to fetch food for them and feed them and teach them how to live independently so that one day they can start the cycle all over again. Now if a female decides she is going to have a kid every 9 months for 25 years (which is certainly possible) she is probably going to end up losing more offspring in the long run then an individual who had genes that told it to hold back and DON’T reproduce every time you get horny but instead reproduce carefully then take care of your offspring to insure its eventual ability to reproduce itself. Keep in mind this is IN NATURE. Today we live in a welfare society and we are not as constrained by the limits of nature. But our GENES still remain. The modern welfare state is a very unnatural thing. When we lived in caves those females that had 25 kids probably starved along with most of all of their kids because they just couldn’t take care of them all. SO those females that had the genes to NOT have massive amounts of children did better and passed on their genes. The parent in nature must be able to strike a balance between BEARING and CARING. Those who bear too much pay the consequences and so do their genes. Those who care too much never have kids and only pass on the genes of others. So neither strategy works alone. You need a… everybody now…. BALANCE. And for our species that balance occurs when, IN NATURE, we can sustain a maximum number of offspring without reaching a point at which this number overwhelms our ability to care for them.

Ok so Ive just shown you why humans don’t reproduce like flies and why it could actually benefit the genes to actively avoid constant reproduction. But why, you still say, would a given human elect NEVER to reproduce? Well, I submit that this is simply the logical extension of those genes that tell us to limit our reproduction. If you can limit yourself to 10. or 2. why not 0. it is, after all, the mean of the effect of the gene and not EACH specific case that proves the rule. MOST humans end up having children. Therefore most of the genes that cause this are successful. If one in say 50 humans does NOT reproduce then in actuality they seem to me to be the exception that proves the rule. That we have the genetic ability to limit ourselves (since its too our genes benefit to do so) BUT most people have children. And overall the average tends to be about right for our species. Even counting the ones who think they are different because they haven’t reproduced.

[Insidious Rex]

whew! im spent.

[Elvellyn]

Please forgive me, I have not been following this thread lately. I don't have much in the way of an attention span (esp when reading small font on a computer screen) and the posts tend to be...well...long. So if all of this is totally off I'm sorry.

I don’t really understand your question. The genes don’t decide to do anything. If you are born with genes that make it more likely that youll be a hero then that’s what youll be in most situations. If the environment favors heroes then you will tend to benefit. If the environment does not favor heroes then you will most likely suffer.

Sweetie, there's one problem with your little theory. There is no heroism gene. There aren't genes for alot of things.

ok the reproduction thing. Lets begin. Probably the easiest way to do this is to look at the opposite extreme? Well if restraining from having children is apparently going against nature then the ideal would be to have children constantly. Because that way we would be passing on our genes to the maximum extent possible. Right? Why don’t humans have 50 kids? 100 kids? 1000? Think of all the genes!! Ok of course this is patently ridiculous because we cant raise 1000 kids. In fact, there is an equilibrium in nature or a balance (theres that word again!) that is the point at which a given organism can reproduce itself efficiently without sabotaging itself by means of OVER reproduction.

That doesn't work either because having 1000 kids would be physically impossible, where as having no kids is not. That's why you can't just flip it around and say that its the same thing- cause it ain't.

Ok so Ive just shown you why humans don’t reproduce like flies and why it could actually benefit the genes to actively avoid constant reproduction. But why, you still say, would a given human elect NEVER to reproduce? Well, I submit that this is simply the logical extension of those genes that tell us to limit our reproduction. If you can limit yourself to 10. or 2. why not 0. it is, after all, the mean of the effect of the gene and not EACH specific case that proves the rule. MOST humans end up having children. Therefore most of the genes that cause this are successful. If one in say 50 humans does NOT reproduce then in actuality they seem to me to be the exception that proves the rule. That we have the genetic ability to limit ourselves (since its too our genes benefit to do so) BUT most people have children. And overall the average tends to be about right for our species. Even counting the ones who think they are different because they haven’t reproduced.

Are you trying to say there is a gene that determines how many kids you want to have?

Now if a female decides she is going to have a kid every 9 months for 25 years (which is certainly possible)

Sure it is. Yes I suppose in theory perhaps, but for all practical purposes thats impossible. I do know of a woman that had 20 kids in 20 years, but shes definatley an exception.

[Rían]

Sorry I've been away, but I've just not had enough energy to stay with the thread ... I'll try to pick up a few points now-

Insidious Rex:

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
RÃ*an! (1)*being whinny* (2)Ok basically what you are asking me is to ignore the scientific and talk about the moral aspect (moral based on our shared culture I assume). (3)Well I dont think I can really do that but here goes...

(1) - now go to your room until you have a pleasant voice!

(2)And please don't do the 'ignore the scientific' thing, because science is wonderful in its proper sphere (many Christians use it and are skilled in its application ) but science is not properly applicable to every subject - only those areas where a hypothesis may be formed and tested and results measured and found to be repeatable or not repeatable. I can't scientifically prove that JRR Tolkien ever lived (and neither can you ) but most reasonable people assume that he did.

(3)Of course you can talk about the moral aspect, because everyone has a basic moral code designed into them by God Everyone knows that 'right' and 'wrong' are value judgements that can and should be applied to behavior.

(4)"right" and "wrong" are meaningless terms. ok ok! Hang on i can hear you getting worked up already. what i mean is when you are speaking from strictly a biological stand point then those terms are irrelevant. (5) now how do I PERSONALLY feel about your little baby killing scenerio? of course i think its wrong. and you already knew that I thought that. (6)you just wanted me to say it so you could say ha! see and draw a moral law conclusion from it. (7)but it wont work. Im much too slippery for that.

(4) - I agree

(5) - Yes, I thought you would agree it was wrong - we have a common moral code implanted in us by God

(6) - I prefer "ah-HA!" And the conclusion is perfectly valid.

(7) - um why won't it work? *checks rules* - no, there is no rule that says that if you know where I'm leading to, then the conclusion is invalid . You yourself recognize that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" do indeed exist - we both knew that, and I just wanted to point that out. And altho the exact details may differ slightly, still the very fact that the concept exists universally is fascinating, don't you think? And I agree - from a biological standpoint, the terms are irrelevant - and thus they cannot have 'evolved' - they must have come from an outside source ....

[Insidious Rex]

see thats what I like about ya hun you arent afraid to get in there with the big boys and swing the heavy lumber around some. do you get your confidence from living off the earth and all?

Originally posted by Elvellyn
Please forgive me, I have not been following this thread lately. I don't have much in the way of an attention span

huh? were you saying something? oh sorry. i forgive you. i think Leif and I have bored/intimated/worn out all the rest except for Cirdan and GreyMouser once in a while. Its good to have some new blood in here. even downstater blood...

Sweetie, there's one problem with your little theory. There is no heroism gene. There aren't genes for alot of things.

ok.. honey... but how do you know that? there could be a SERIES of genes that cause an animal to act in what we percieve to be a heroic way. or an altruistic way. like the genes that cause a honey bee to sting you when you touch its hive. looks awful heroic to us humans. but its just reacting from blind genes. "heroism" was just a way to define a behavior really.

That doesn't work either because having 1000 kids would be physically impossible, where as having no kids is not. That's why you can't just flip it around and say that its the same thing- cause it ain't.

well its not impossible for a frog. or an ant. so why not for us? BY the way did you know the world record for most kids born to ONE woman is like 64?!! Yeah for real. some women from russia. apparently she was prone to multiple births so she had a bunch of twins and triplets and such. but still! 64! I mean i can see you flinching in pain just thinking about that. And dont you run out of names after a while?

Are you trying to say there is a gene that determines how many kids you want to have?

no but there may be some that determine what your optimal litter size would be as a human. how many kids do you want Elvellyn? Im guessing somewhere between 2 and 5. Am i close? If you had more you migh overwelm the farm and run out of live stock to eat. So you gotta have something in you that says ok balance it out. Dont have TOO many now. Something to even out the hormone attack.

I do know of a woman that had 20 kids in 20 years, but shes definatley an exception.

yeah i knew a chick who had 7 grandkids and she was only 38. scary. hard to find a trailer that holds that many kids and dogs.

[Rían]

IRex - my post sneaked in before yours - I assume you were talking to Elvellyn, right? (but do I get a 'hun', too? )

One more comment -

by IRex
ok the reproduction thing. Lets begin. Probably the easiest way to do this is to look at the opposite extreme? Well if restraining from having children is apparently going against nature then the ideal would be to have children constantly

WRONG! *RÃ*an's child-bearing scars ache at the mere thought!* The ideal would be to have as many children as you think you can raise well. And that is a matter of applying our good judgement that God gives to us.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
IRex - my post sneaked in before yours - I assume you were talking to Elvellyn, right? (but do I get a 'hun', too? )

of course you get lots of huns. err.. is your husband around?

WRONG! *RÃ*an's child-bearing scars ache at the mere thought!* The ideal would be to have as many children as you think you can raise well. And that [not having 1000 kids]is a matter of applying our good judgement that God gives to us.

or.... it may be a matter of the genes in the population for having way too many offspring despite the limited resources died off in favor of the genes for having a balanced breeding pattern that maximizes the genes and maximizes the liklihood of their being passed on. its all in how you put it hun.

[Elvellyn]

well its not impossible for a frog. or an ant. so why not for us?

Because we're not made that way. Our bodies and all that weren't designed to have a thousand kids.

ok.. honey... but how do you know that? there could be a SERIES of genes that cause an animal to act in what we percieve to be a heroic way. or an altruistic way.

Okay, I offer you an example. I kow these two girls who are twins. Identical twins. As in they have the exact same genes. One of them is just plain mean. The other is a sweetheart. So now we know there is no "nice" gene.

like the genes that cause a honey bee to sting you when you touch its hive. looks awful heroic to us humans. but its just reacting from blind genes. "heroism" was just a way to define a behavior really.

Those are just instincts. That's not really heroism on the honey bee's part, that's just the natural course of action for them.
Humans, though, are different. For the honey bee, stinging is just as natural as you blinking when something comes toward your eye. Of course we all know, that when the honey bee stings you, it dies. So would it be just as natural for you to give up your life saving someone else as it was for that honey bee? No. With humans, self-sacrifce is usually a consious(sp?) decision.

no but there may be some that determine what your optimal litter size would be as a human. how many kids do you want Elvellyn? Im guessing somewhere between 2 and 5. Am i close? If you had more you migh overwelm the farm and run out of live stock to eat. So you gotta have something in you that says ok balance it out. Dont have TOO many now. Something to even out the hormone attack

I think "optimal litter size" is based on situation rather than genes. My dad was the youngest of seven kids. That's cause back in the day, having lots of kids was useful. Nowadays, havin seven or nine or sixty-four kids would just be impractical.

[Rían]

IRex -

My husband is watching a guy movie (you know, guns and stuff ) - he doesn't mind a friendly 'hun', but objects to anything more substantial BTW, my husband once pointed out to me during one such guy movie that cars can't have squealing tires on gravel or dirt, even tho the sound effects people seem to think differently! I would never have thought of that!

Any comments about my previous post, IRex? (the one before the one where I mentioned my scars...)

[Rían]

(ps - Elvellyn - you go, girl! Tell those guys how it is! And I wouldn't call a bee 'heroic', either!)

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
IRex -

Any comments about my previous post, IRex? (the one before the one where I mentioned my scars...)

(ps - Elvellyn - you go, girl! Tell those guys how it is! And I wouldn't call a bee 'heroic', either!)

ah! this thread used to be me and Leif posting long plodding essays every 3 days or so and suddenly you two jump in and double team me out of nowhere. Elvellyn, just cause you dont have school tomorrow doesnt mean you can help RÃ*an beat me up all hours of the night! And RÃ*an yer on the west coast you have an advantage. Ill have to get back to you on the rest you two. I gotta get some sleep and drive 7 hours tomorrow. Wish me and my genes luck tomorrow.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elvellyn
Because we're not made that way. Our bodies and all that weren't designed to have a thousand kids.

Human offspring require more care post-birth than most other mammals. Factor this in, and ipso facto, suddenly it's not practical to have a million little bundles of joy. Plus, due to the size of human foetus heads, vs the size of a woman's pelvis, we can only carry children half term. We should, theoretically, be carrying children to term in eighteen months, or somewhere around that ballpark, NOT nine months. This is another reason why such intensive care is required of human offspring - quite a lot of development happens post-birth.

[Elvellyn]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
ah! this thread used to be me and Leif posting long plodding essays every 3 days or so and suddenly you two jump in and double team me out of nowhere. Elvellyn, just cause you dont have school tomorrow doesnt mean you can help RÃ*an beat me up all hours of the night! And RÃ*an yer on the west coast you have an advantage. Ill have to get back to you on the rest you two. I gotta get some sleep and drive 7 hours tomorrow. Wish me and my genes luck tomorrow.

Your genes don't need any luck sweetie.(they don't affect your driving either) Have a nice time in New York!