3 ms·
A lot of behaviour is in response to stimuli (like light) The "purpose" of that behaviour is that it helps certain genes reproduce. This behaviour could be co
by 7952 5y ago
A lot of behaviour is in response to stimuli (like light) The "purpose" of that behaviour is that it helps certain genes reproduce. This behaviour could be complex and unexpected or much simpler.
Animals may be able to exhibit more complex behaviour, but it is still mostly just a response to stimuli. An ant doesn't know why it cooperates, it does not have a purpose in a human sense. It has genes that have survived because they encourage social behaviour. It behaves socially in response to stimuli and helps the genes to spread.
- strogonoff 5y ago> Animals may be able to exhibit more complex behaviour, but it is still mostly just a response to stimuli. An ant doesn't know why it cooperates, it does not have a purpose in a human sense. It has genes that have survived because they encourage social behaviour. It behaves socially in response to stimuli and helps the genes to spread. Fun thought experiment: what if humans are the same? When was the last time you did something that didn’t help genes to spread, or wasn’t part of a longer strategy with that as eventual purpose?
- redeux 5y agoProbably when I got a vasectomy.
- strogonoff 5y agoIsn’t it said that genes’ spread doesn’t necessarily imply individual gene carrier’s survival or having more children? Like a thumping bunny that makes itself noticeable to a predator but helps relatives survive.
- cratermoon 5y agoIt's more than that. Most eusocial insects have only one reproductive member per unit - the queen. All of the rest of the members are children of the queen and work to ensure her ability to reproduce, thus maintaining their own gene line. The future queens will be sisters of the non-reproducing insects. Very vague recollection of mine, but I believe there was a study about the role of homosexuality in propagating the species. In very complex social animals likes humans, we can also ask about the reproductive "utility" of such things as art and music, which don't directly contribute to the basic needs of survival.
- 7952 5y agoI think that traits have to be sufficiently detrimental to reproductive success for evolution to remove them. For example a genetic predisposition for cancer in old age is unlikely to have an effect on reproductive success. Whilst a gene that reduces fertility in young people would. It is possible that things like art and music are the result of traits in our genome that are beneficial in other ways. Or the traits just didn't inhibit reproduction. Maybe a hypothetical "gay gene" could have survived in women simply because they historically lacked choice about reproduction.
- 7952 5y agoWell we are the same. But our brains and culture let us go beyond that.
- strogonoff 5y agoWhat makes you so sure it’s different for humans and all that isn’t merely an elaborate way of post-rationalizing our gene-driven behavior?
- 7952 5y agoWell yes human culture depends on our genes. You couldn't have the Beatles without the traits that allow music to exist. But the reproduction of those new ideas is not sex based. That is different and can happen much more quickly than evolution. The song of a bird could take thousands of years to change. Humans can make new music in a day that builds on previous culture. But untangling this all is really interesting.