4 ms·

Check out the book "The Red Queen". The author points out that even chromosomes fight for survival at the expense of other chromosomes and the body. X chromosom

Check out the book "The Red Queen". The author points out that even chromosomes fight for survival at the expense of other chromosomes and the body. X chromosomes try to destroy the Y chromosome, for example. https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0060556579/ https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0... This is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read.

tyre 6mo ago
Relatedly, the book Vagina Obscura talks about women’s anatomy as a battle between the baby (wants as many resources as possible) and the mother (doesn’t want to die from what is, essentially, a parasite.) Fascinating mental shift to explain things like the menstrual cycle (why would we want an environment that can be fully shed every month? Isn’t that crazy expensive?)
- Terr_ 6mo ago
  An online essay with a similar theme: https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...
- lukan 6mo ago
  "why would we want an environment that can be fully shed every month? Isn’t that crazy expensive?" Any ideas how to raise babies more efficent? Evolution does not optimize for the individual, but the species.
  - WalterBright 6mo ago
    Evolution does not optimize for anything. If the organism propagates, it may propagate again. But there is no goal. As the RQ shows, this process often leads to a dead end. Such as a short term success for cancer, but no long term success. Deadly infections lose their deadliness over time, as killing the host does not lead to propagation. Evolution often falls into a local optima, which will inevitably lead to extinction.
    - Veserv 6mo ago
      Deadly diseases losing their deadliness over time is possible, but hardly guaranteed even at the species/population level. Rabies has effectively a 100% fatality rate in host species. Smallpox, which is human-specific with no animal reservoir so must have been spread consistently and entirely within humans, had a fatality rate on the order of 10-30% even after thousands of years of co-evolution.
      - WalterBright 6mo ago
        Smallpox was much less deadly to Europeans than the Indians. Indians fell like flies to European diseases. Covid seems to have its mortality dramatically shrunk. Our genomes are full of bits and pieces of ancient disease DNA. Our bodies are full of bugs that have evolved into peaceful coexistence. Some bugs even became part of us (mitochondria).
        Veserv 6mo ago
        > Smallpox was much less deadly to Europeans than the Indians. Indians fell like flies to European diseases. That does not support your argument that there is a adaptive advantage for reduced deadliness. The fact that it was exceedingly deadly to non co-evolved hosts indicates it was not the disease that became less deadly, but that the co-evolved hosts developed better defenses. > Our bodies are full of bugs that have evolved into peaceful coexistence. That is a argument that there is a continuous adaptive advantage to reduced deadliness down to ~0%. Again, Rabies had and continues to have a nearly 100% fatality rate in co-evolved hosts for thousands of years. Smallpox had a 10-30% fatality rate. Any magical inherent adaptive advantage for reduced deadliness failed to materialize to continue pushing down their deadliness. Or put another way, a disease can have a 30% mortality rate and still do a really bang-up job at propagation with limited adaptive pressure to reduce that further for thousands of years. Peaceful coexistence is more likely a artifact of the specific dynamic than any sort of meaningful fundamental advantage to reduced deadliness.
        WalterBright 6mo ago
- mmooss 6mo ago
  > a battle between the baby (wants as many resources as possible) and the mother (doesn’t want to die from what is, essentially, a parasite.) That's hard to reconcile everything else we know: The baby needs a healthy mother in order to survive until and past childbirth and to be healthy itself. For the mother, for multiple reasons, nothing is more important than the baby's survival and well-being. Humans generally care for and will help and sacrifice for other humans, most especially those in their clan (however that's defined) and with their genes.
  - IAmBroom 6mo ago
    It's easy to reconcile with many pregnancies I've known amongst friends. Decrease maternal health, and real threats to her survival, are far from rare. Daily puking for an extended period is a common side effect. The mother loses a great deal of mobility in the last trimester... Don't confuse terms like "parasite" with implying evil or malicious intent.
    - mmooss 6mo ago
      But that doesn't mean the mother sees herself as competing with the fetus, nor sees the fetus as a parasite. Pregnancy may be unpleasant in that sense, but only sociopaths weigh that against the fetus' well-being. When a parent buys food for their child, they don't think of their children as parasites on their income!

tyre 6mo ago

Relatedly, the book Vagina Obscura talks about women’s anatomy as a battle between the baby (wants as many resources as possible) and the mother (doesn’t want to die from what is, essentially, a parasite.) Fascinating mental shift to explain things like the menstrual cycle (why would we want an environment that can be fully shed every month? Isn’t that crazy expensive?)

Terr_ 6mo ago
An online essay with a similar theme: https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-between-mother-and-baby https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...
lukan 6mo ago
"why would we want an environment that can be fully shed every month? Isn’t that crazy expensive?" Any ideas how to raise babies more efficent? Evolution does not optimize for the individual, but the species.
- WalterBright 6mo ago
  Evolution does not optimize for anything. If the organism propagates, it may propagate again. But there is no goal. As the RQ shows, this process often leads to a dead end. Such as a short term success for cancer, but no long term success. Deadly infections lose their deadliness over time, as killing the host does not lead to propagation. Evolution often falls into a local optima, which will inevitably lead to extinction.
  - Veserv 6mo ago
    Deadly diseases losing their deadliness over time is possible, but hardly guaranteed even at the species/population level. Rabies has effectively a 100% fatality rate in host species. Smallpox, which is human-specific with no animal reservoir so must have been spread consistently and entirely within humans, had a fatality rate on the order of 10-30% even after thousands of years of co-evolution.
    - WalterBright 6mo ago
      Smallpox was much less deadly to Europeans than the Indians. Indians fell like flies to European diseases. Covid seems to have its mortality dramatically shrunk. Our genomes are full of bits and pieces of ancient disease DNA. Our bodies are full of bugs that have evolved into peaceful coexistence. Some bugs even became part of us (mitochondria).
      - Veserv 6mo ago
        > Smallpox was much less deadly to Europeans than the Indians. Indians fell like flies to European diseases. That does not support your argument that there is a adaptive advantage for reduced deadliness. The fact that it was exceedingly deadly to non co-evolved hosts indicates it was not the disease that became less deadly, but that the co-evolved hosts developed better defenses. > Our bodies are full of bugs that have evolved into peaceful coexistence. That is a argument that there is a continuous adaptive advantage to reduced deadliness down to ~0%. Again, Rabies had and continues to have a nearly 100% fatality rate in co-evolved hosts for thousands of years. Smallpox had a 10-30% fatality rate. Any magical inherent adaptive advantage for reduced deadliness failed to materialize to continue pushing down their deadliness. Or put another way, a disease can have a 30% mortality rate and still do a really bang-up job at propagation with limited adaptive pressure to reduce that further for thousands of years. Peaceful coexistence is more likely a artifact of the specific dynamic than any sort of meaningful fundamental advantage to reduced deadliness.
        WalterBright 6mo ago
mmooss 6mo ago
> a battle between the baby (wants as many resources as possible) and the mother (doesn’t want to die from what is, essentially, a parasite.) That's hard to reconcile everything else we know: The baby needs a healthy mother in order to survive until and past childbirth and to be healthy itself. For the mother, for multiple reasons, nothing is more important than the baby's survival and well-being. Humans generally care for and will help and sacrifice for other humans, most especially those in their clan (however that's defined) and with their genes.
- IAmBroom 6mo ago
  It's easy to reconcile with many pregnancies I've known amongst friends. Decrease maternal health, and real threats to her survival, are far from rare. Daily puking for an extended period is a common side effect. The mother loses a great deal of mobility in the last trimester... Don't confuse terms like "parasite" with implying evil or malicious intent.
  - mmooss 6mo ago
    But that doesn't mean the mother sees herself as competing with the fetus, nor sees the fetus as a parasite. Pregnancy may be unpleasant in that sense, but only sociopaths weigh that against the fetus' well-being. When a parent buys food for their child, they don't think of their children as parasites on their income!