3 ms·

> Rather than helping individuals survive, it evolved to help us broadcast our experienced ideas and feelings into the wider world. And this might benefit the s

> Rather than helping individuals survive, it evolved to help us broadcast our experienced ideas and feelings into the wider world. And this might benefit the survival and wellbeing of the wider species. Not another "survival of the species" confusion. Social cohesion helps the survival of the individual genes. If anything, our society is actually rather precarious for species-level survival due to its self-destructive nature. Genes are not selected based on species-level survival.

gmac 2y ago
Nor sure it's that clear-cut. https://blog.oup.com/2015/01/kin-group-selection-controversy/ https://blog.oup.com/2015/01/kin-group-selection-controversy...
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  Kin selection is not the same thing as group selection as in "survival of the species". Kin-selection theories might "work" due to the emergent behaviour of social systems but "survival of the species" is something else altogether and unrelated.
  - gmac 2y ago
    If you actually follow the link, you'll see it's not only about kin selection, but also about group selection, and species selection would be a form of that.
lioeters 2y ago
> Genes are not selected based on species-level survival. Taking the selfish-gene interpretation further, it could be argued that they're not selected based on individual-level survival either, unless "individual" means the genes themselves instead of the carrier. As long as the genes get to reproduce, the individual can be cast off like old shoes. I can also imagine there could be a mechanism for "survival of the species" as emergent behavior from the collective interactions of individual selfishness. Looking at human society these days, it doesn't seem that way though.
- Gormo 2y ago
  > Looking at human society these days, it doesn't seem that way though. It seems extremely evident to me. Humans expanded from a small group of primates limited to a specific region of east Africa to being globally endemic, with a population of billions, and modifying diverse ecosystems to optimize for our own survival, all within the span of a few hundred thousand years.
  - lioeters 2y ago
    True. It feels like humans are driven by individual selfishness, so much that it's threatening the survival of the species. But on a long timeline of centuries and millenia, somehow "collective selfishness" is working out well. In terms of population, the past century has been a grand success, far above any local damage caused by immense selfishness of an individual or small group. Who knows, maybe such seemingly destructive tendencies are even contributing to further the collective.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      > It feels like humans are driven by individual selfishness, so much that it's threatening the survival of the species. I'm not sure I'm following. Individual selfishness seems to be driving rapid expansion and propagation of the human species -- where do you see any threat? > But on a long timeline of centuries and millenia, somehow "collective selfishness" is working out well. What do you mean by "collective selfishness?" I'm not sure I'm aware of anything that exists that matches how I am interpreting that phrase. > Who knows, maybe such seemingly destructive tendencies are even contributing to further the collective. What destructive tendencies are you referring to?
      - amy-petrik-214 2y ago
        [flagged]

gmac 2y ago

Nor sure it's that clear-cut. https://blog.oup.com/2015/01/kin-group-selection-controversy/ https://blog.oup.com/2015/01/kin-group-selection-controversy...

vouaobrasil 2y ago
Kin selection is not the same thing as group selection as in "survival of the species". Kin-selection theories might "work" due to the emergent behaviour of social systems but "survival of the species" is something else altogether and unrelated.
- gmac 2y ago
  If you actually follow the link, you'll see it's not only about kin selection, but also about group selection, and species selection would be a form of that.

lioeters 2y ago

> Genes are not selected based on species-level survival. Taking the selfish-gene interpretation further, it could be argued that they're not selected based on individual-level survival either, unless "individual" means the genes themselves instead of the carrier. As long as the genes get to reproduce, the individual can be cast off like old shoes. I can also imagine there could be a mechanism for "survival of the species" as emergent behavior from the collective interactions of individual selfishness. Looking at human society these days, it doesn't seem that way though.

Gormo 2y ago
> Looking at human society these days, it doesn't seem that way though. It seems extremely evident to me. Humans expanded from a small group of primates limited to a specific region of east Africa to being globally endemic, with a population of billions, and modifying diverse ecosystems to optimize for our own survival, all within the span of a few hundred thousand years.
- lioeters 2y ago
  True. It feels like humans are driven by individual selfishness, so much that it's threatening the survival of the species. But on a long timeline of centuries and millenia, somehow "collective selfishness" is working out well. In terms of population, the past century has been a grand success, far above any local damage caused by immense selfishness of an individual or small group. Who knows, maybe such seemingly destructive tendencies are even contributing to further the collective.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    > It feels like humans are driven by individual selfishness, so much that it's threatening the survival of the species. I'm not sure I'm following. Individual selfishness seems to be driving rapid expansion and propagation of the human species -- where do you see any threat? > But on a long timeline of centuries and millenia, somehow "collective selfishness" is working out well. What do you mean by "collective selfishness?" I'm not sure I'm aware of anything that exists that matches how I am interpreting that phrase. > Who knows, maybe such seemingly destructive tendencies are even contributing to further the collective. What destructive tendencies are you referring to?
    - amy-petrik-214 2y ago
      [flagged]