4 ms·

But if it were maladaptive then it would have been selected against in people no?

• hackerlight 4y ago
  You could ask the same question of any virus or idea or parasite that is currently co-opting evolved systems. One answer is that it's an evolutionary arms race. Evolution vs evolution has no clear winner. In this case, it's powerful artificial selection by dog breeders to create products that co-opt our compassion for our children. Another answer is that evolution needs more time to figure out how to beat it. Another answer is that it's not actually maladaptive because the assumption that pets reduce children isn't true. It may be adaptive because having a pet increases happiness. But even if this is true, it doesn't impact the validity of the thesis that compassion is a self-serving adaptation that gets switched off when needed.
  • pfisherman 4y ago
    Viruses exist on a much smaller space time scale than human and they evolve and mutate much faster. In fact, we are in a constant arms race with pathogens (see development of antibiotics and the rise of antibiotic resistance). As far as I know, bear cubs, wolf cubs, tiny lizards, etc have been cute for the entirety of recorded history, and probably much longer. So that does not seem like a very apt comparison. Also I think that you are conflating the survival mechanism of an organism - for example malaria latency - with a maladaptive immune response of the host - for example cytokine storm.