3 ms·
Sure, but that advantage must be one of the individual, not of society. Genes are selfish -- they help society only insofar as it helps the individual. They wi
by Peaker 15y ago
Sure, but that advantage must be one of the individual, not of society.
Genes are selfish -- they help society only insofar as it helps the individual. They will never choose society's benefit over the individual's.
- mikeash 15y agoThe benefit doesn't have to be to the suicidal individual, though. One copy of the sickle cell gene confers a tremendous advantage: great resistance to malaria. Two copies of the gene kills the unfortunate person fairly quickly in the absence of modern medicine. There's no advantage to suffering from sickle cell disease, but there's enough of an advantage to other people that the gene persisted and even flourished in some populations. Suicide could be similar. There are probably a bunch of genes which coordinate to work on our brains, and are generally advantageous. I speculate that in certain combinations, these genes contribute mental illnesses, including depression and tendency toward suicide. This doesn't get selected out, because those genes in other combinations are still highly advantageous.
- Peaker 15y agoYes, indeed, the gene may be detrimental under certain conditions to the individual (e.g: two copies of same gene), if it helps the individual in the average case. There are many nuances that my statements in previous comments gloss over and which make them incorrect. My point is that "societal selection" of genes is rare and virtually completely insignificant.