6 ms·
That is not true. There are plenty of ways not to reproduce and still to perpetuate your genetics. For example, if you don't have children of your own, but supp
by auggierose 1y ago
That is not true. There are plenty of ways not to reproduce and still to perpetuate your genetics. For example, if you don't have children of your own, but support people that have similar genetic traits to your own.
- tonyhart7 1y ago"but support people that have similar genetic traits to your own." but how its that works then??? does that mean your genetic trait is already there in the first place if its already there in the first place there must be something that start it now right, which basically counter your argument
- drdeca 1y ago> does that mean your genetic trait is already there in the first place Yes? > if its already there in the first place there must be something that start it now right, which basically counter your argument What?
- Grimblewald 1y agoIf i support my brothers / sisters children, but have no children of my own, genetic data of mine survives into future generations, after all I share half my genetic data with my siblings. If my helping these children gives them a competitive advantage in further reproduction, where the total reproductive strength of these well supported kids is greater than the total reproductive strength my family would have if I had my own children as well and split our resources, then this behaviour outcompetes simple reproduction, and if this behaviour is genetically encoded, becomes a dominant trait over time.
- thrwthsnw 1y agoWhat is this? Genetics for ants?
- auggierose 1y agoZoolander?
- mulmen 1y agoIf they aren’t your children they aren’t your genes.
- auggierose 1y agoGenes are just data. You can compare data.
- mulmen 1y agoYes you can but fitness is defined by reproduction, not by similarity.
- auggierose 1y agoYou don't make any sense. After all, your children are not your clones. You cannot "define" truth.
- mulmen 1y ago> After all, your children are not your clones. Human children are not clones but in asexual reproduction can produce literal clones. > You cannot "define" truth. I can and it isn't even hard. "Truth" is a word. It has a definition... by definition.
- drdeca 1y agoThe word “word”, as usually used, is not a term which is defined to only apply to things which have definitions. Generally one can describe how people use a word. (Though, see “semantic primes”; there has to be some cycles in what words are defined using what words.) I think the quotations around “define” were intentional in the comment you replied to. I think their point wasn’t to say something like the “undefinability of truth” paradox (the whole “truth is in the metalanguage” thing), but to say that it seemed to them that you were kind of sneaking in assumptions as part of definitions, or something like that, idk.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- robwwilliams 1y agoThis is sometimes referred to as the “grandmother effect” in sexually reproducing species. The evidence in favor i still weak even in humans due to our low effective population size. I am not sure that there is good empirical support in other species, even eusocial insects.