3 ms·
I agree with that point with respect to the host's fitness. But the conflict here stems from the fact that those other constraints (such as the host's long ter
by etiam 13y ago
I agree with that point with respect to the host's fitness.
But the conflict here stems from the fact that those other constraints (such as the host's long term survival or reproduction) has little or no value in itself to the parasite, so there's a chance to have a mismatch of fitness objectives between the host and the parasite.
- bnegreve 13y agoIs there a conflict? It seems probable the only purpose of surviving is to increase the odds of a successful reproduction.
- terranstyler 13y agoIf I understand correctly, you suggest that a parasite would sacrifice "long term survival" or "offspring adulthood probability" to achieve increased reproductive success!? Hmm, the host could for example go on a "raping spree" but it unsure how this would lead to _significantly_ increased reproduction (I suppose this is an energetically costly enterprise) and why the raping spree wouldn't be already an "integrated" behavior if it were so successful.
- etiam 13y agoIn this case 'a parasite would sacrifice host long term survival or host offspring adulthood probability to achieve increase it's own reproductive success'. The article concerns parasite manipulation of host behaviour, and to the extent that such manipulation can take control the host will act in the parasite's genetic interest rather than it's own.