3 ms·
I think about this a lot. It seems that there must be some benefit to society from having certain members contribute but not reproduce. Obviously, from a purely
by pault 7y ago
I think about this a lot. It seems that there must be some benefit to society from having certain members contribute but not reproduce. Obviously, from a purely darwinistic point of view, you would think that biological organisms that don't want to reproduce would have been bred out of the gene pool a long time ago. However, to answer your question, your parents had a child that cares intensely about their craft, so maybe it doesn't matter in the long run.
- meruru 7y agoOh the evolutionary answer is easy. If your parents have a gene that can make you behave in a way that reduces the chance of you reproducing, but changes your behavior in such a way that increases the chance of your kin surviving, then that gene is in good position to spread in the population through your siblings. Of course that doesn't work so well when the average fertility rate is less than 2 children per couple. Also, the same gene can sometimes have a positive and negative effect on your chances of reproducing at the same time. For instance, suppose there's a gene that makes you want to work out instead of have sex. That might just increase your chances more than decrease in an environment where you need strength to survive (or that partners are attracted to that).
- andygates 7y agoThat's the evo argument for the "gay uncle" (et al) as a noncompetitive but good to have around person. I'm not sure it's true, but it's a tale as old as at least the 90's.