5 ms·

Probably when I got a vasectomy.

• strogonoff 5y ago
  Isn’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 ago
    It'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 ago
      I 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.