Natural Selection

[Nero]

I was just curious about something, so I thought I'd come here and share with you guys my quandry.

 

 

 

If natural selection is true, eventually wouldn't the entire human population be made up of cowards? If bravery and courage are hereditary traits (which they could be), the brave and courageous people would all go off to war, and after generations of war, wouldn't they eventually ceast to exist?

[Bauke]

That's not how genetics work. And "going off to war" isn't QUITE the only thing that affects natural selection. There are about a gazillion factors more.

[Nero]

That's not how genetics work. And "going off to war" isn't QUITE the only thing that affects natural selection. There are about a gazillion factors more.

 

 

 

I know, but it is possible that character traits are actually hereditary. Also, I'm not asking about natural selection as a whole, as it's quite obvious that war isn't the only thing that effects it. But in this case it's the most prominent factor.

[Shinjula]

You're massively over simplifying a hugely complex system so its not really surprising if it comes up gibberish.

 

 

 

Bravery and cowardice are highly conceptualised things and would be unlikely to be represented in such simplistic gene processes, not to mention your proposal that only brave people go to war and only cowards stay at home.

[Bauke]

That's not how genetics work. And "going off to war" isn't QUITE the only thing that affects natural selection. There are about a gazillion factors more.

 

 

 

I know, but it is possible that character traits are actually hereditary. Also, I'm not asking about natural selection as a whole, as it's quite obvious that war isn't the only thing that effects it. But in this case it's the most prominent factor.

 

Yes character traits can be hereditary. Though there are a LOT of genetic factors involved, and a LOT of external factors. Therefore there is nothing significant to say about the matter. Scientists ain't that far yet (and I can tell).

 

 

 

Also, war isn't the most prominent factor either. "Fitness" isn't influenced that much by an occasional war.

 

 

 

There is much to say about genetics, fitness and survival of the fittest.. but your statement is based on absolutely nothing. You can't make this statement based on what we know about evolution.

 

 

 

You're massively over simplifying a hugely complex system so its not really surprising if it comes up gibberish.

 

 

 

Bravery and cowardice are highly conceptualised things and would be unlikely to be represented in such simplistic gene processes, not to mention your proposal that only brave people go to war and only cowards stay at home.

 

Exactly.

[Ezz]

People don't die that much from war... Keep in mind there are 6 billion people in the entire world, and probably 1/3 (sorta arbitrary number) are "brave" or whatever.

[Nero]

but your statement is based on absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

 

Obviously it's based on nothing, I'm not pretending that I fully understand genetics. This is just my ramblings, and my curiosity as to what others would think of it.

[EdgedThesis]

Who would you rather have sex with?

 

A hero or a coward?

 

 

 

 

 

An oversimplified answer to your oversimplified question.

[Mylez]

Seems like quite an ignorant and somewhat dim view of Natural Selection. The surviving race is not made up of cowards, it's made up of the elite. Strong and fit, that's how it will remain. That is to say of course, that humans will survive long enough. Which I very much doubt they will. :)

[assassin_696]

You're massively over simplifying a hugely complex system so its not really surprising if it comes up gibberish.

 

 

 

Bravery and cowardice are highly conceptualised things and would be unlikely to be represented in such simplistic gene processes, not to mention your proposal that only brave people go to war and only cowards stay at home.

 

 

 

Put well.

 

 

 

Natural selection is an incredibly complicated process in the first place, so trying to model the future of an entire species based on only two traits that are either one or the other is very simplistic. Secondly, cowardice and bravery are unlikely to be traits exclusively coded for in genes. Many acts of bravery or cowardice are likely to be affected by external factors, such as who the person is with and who the person is defending/not defending.

 

 

 

Of course that's not to say that during the initial hundreds of generations of human existence people who struck the right balance between running away when necessary and defending their land/family when necessary won't have preferentially been selected for, but to apply that reasoning to the relatively few (and decreasing all the time) generations of human's that have fought wars is naive.

[l0rd]

Lol.

 

 

 

Your conception of "bravery" isn't genetic. Anyways, given population-rise rates, even if such a feature was genetic it wouldn't become extinct. Unless of course all "brave" people died before the age of fertility, lawl.

[Zierro]

It's really a question of nature VS nurture. I think those characteristics exist primarily because of the experiences someone went through in life - not because their parents were that way.

 

 

 

Plus, why does bravery = going to war? I know brave folks who oppose violence.

[pureprayer]

Stupid people = die faster.

 

 

 

Why do we still have stupid people?

[warri0r45]

We're all cowards to an extent in that we're basically selfish about our survival - we all want to survive. That's not to say we can't learn to be brave or courageous and sacrifice ourselves for others, though.

 

 

 

Having said that, a form of courage that probably won't die out is self-sacrifice for your family, especially a mother giving their life for their offspring. Doing that doesn't really eliminate their genes from the gene pool as they survive in the immediate offspring. This is called kin selection.

 

 

 

I think you'd have to first prove that bravery and courage is genetic for your argument to hold any water. Chances are, if a behaviour seems counter intuitive to natural selection, it's learned, not hereditary.

[mmmcannibalism]

assuming bravery and cowardice actually worked like this

 

 

 

1. brave people may be more likely to win a war, its logical to think bravery would make for better soldiers, and if someone is better at fighting with any weapon they are more likely to survive the fighting. starting with WW1, I think only WW1 and WW2 were large enough to actually make a dent in populations worldwide. Those wars involved drafts of most if not all of the involved countries so its fair to say that even with draft dodging it would have been a fair representation of male genetic patterns. Since its just as likely bravery encourages survival theres no reason to believe more brave then non brave people would die. I mean, do you favor a coward or brave person in a knife fight in the trenches?

 

 

 

I doubt it boils down into genes this easily, just thought I would disprove the basis of that.

 

 

 

As a closing note, one key thing about natural selection is it doesnt necessarily breed "better" creatures in the universal sense. If all the food on the earth became apples, just because some birds would do better then humanity doesnt birds are more advanced.

[Kenshinjapan]

I'm going to put my form of natural selection in a different way than the OP.

 

 

 

Let's say that we took away all modern medicines, injections received at birth, and kill all [developmentally delayed]ed/deformed babies at birth.

 

 

 

Well since people just a few hundred years ago died of something as simple as a cold, we can say that those who survived the illnesses naturally became stronger to that certain sickness. If most people eventually died off because of all diseases and only those immune to everything survived, then they could reproduce and create another perfect generation, assuming that those who didn't get the positive traits died.

 

 

 

Now modern medicine undoes natural selection, making those sickly kids that should have died survive and live to have children. For instance, if you know anyone that takes allergy medicines for a food, they should know that their bodies natural function to fight that infection will go down since they have a foreign source doing the work for them. Now, if they suddenly stop taking that medicine, the next time that they have allergies, it will be twice as bad as it was before they originally starting taking the medicine.

 

 

 

Therefore, the perfect society would not have the need for any type of medicine. Heck, it could be compared to evolution (although that is not my belief).

 

 

 

I guess I'm somewhat of a hypocrite though, considering that I would have died long ago by my standards. I guess all of us here wouldn't qualify, but then again, we're not perfect beings either :P.

[i_love_burritos]

Lamarckism is what you are thinking about. ( It's WRONG by the way)

 

 

 

Bravery is not a genetic characteristic, its an aquired characteristic.

 

 

 

Search Lamarckism up.

[dusqi]

I'm going to put my form of natural selection in a different way than the OP.

 

 

 

Let's say that we took away all modern medicines, injections received at birth, and kill all [developmentally delayed]/deformed babies at birth.

 

 

 

Well since people just a few hundred years ago died of something as simple as a cold, we can say that those who survived the illnesses naturally became stronger to that certain sickness. If most people eventually died off because of all diseases and only those immune to everything survived, then they could reproduce and create another perfect generation, assuming that those who didn't get the positive traits died.

 

 

 

Now modern medicine undoes natural selection, making those sickly kids that should have died survive and live to have children. For instance, if you know anyone that takes allergy medicines for a food, they should know that their bodies natural function to fight that infection will go down since they have a foreign source doing the work for them. Now, if they suddenly stop taking that medicine, the next time that they have allergies, it will be twice as bad as it was before they originally starting taking the medicine.

 

 

 

Therefore, the perfect society would not have the need for any type of medicine. Heck, it could be compared to evolution (although that is not my belief).

 

 

 

I guess I'm somewhat of a hypocrite though, considering that I would have died long ago by my standards. I guess all of us here wouldn't qualify, but then again, we're not perfect beings either :P.

 

 

 

But then, the evolution of intelligence is still part of natural selection - our intelligence allows us to stay one step ahead of the diseases. In the end there is no "perfect being" in evolution. You're either alive or you're not.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, someone said that evolution should get rid of stupid people. In a sense it has. Even the stupidest people are far more intelligent than the rest of the animals.

 

 

 

 

 

For the OP, you will want to look up evolutionary psychology (one can start at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology ). Basically it boils down to things that posters have already said. Bravery might help you survive, and it might help you compete for a mate (women want someone who will look after their kids). Bravery might also exist because people reciprocate for one another ("if you go out of the trench first this time, I'll do it next time"). It might also survive because of culture and how we celebrate brave people, and so people emulate that.

 

 

 

I'd say that it's also very likely that bravery would be inherited to some extent. All the personality factors I know of have an inheritance rate of about 50%.

[Bauke]

It's really a question of nature VS nurture. I think those characteristics exist primarily because of the experiences someone went through in life - not because their parents were that way.

 

 

 

Plus, why does bravery = going to war? I know brave folks who oppose violence.

 

There is no nature "vs" nurture. There is only nature AND nurture. It's not either one, it's both.

 

 

 

@above: It's not only genetics that makes characteristics "inheritable". Brave people (can you define that type of people? Don't think so, but lets just assume) will probably raise their kids with trying to get them to acquire a brave personality. That's an important factor in the inheritability. Or better: how character traits are passed on from parent to child.

 

 

 

but your statement is based on absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

 

Obviously it's based on nothing, I'm not pretending that I fully understand genetics. This is just my ramblings, and my curiosity as to what others would think of it.

 

Ok, I probably misinterpreted you.

[lobsta]

Without getting into the nature/nurture debate...and for the sake of conversation, lets assume that bravery and cowardice are naturally inherited characteristics. Lets say that there are genes that code for cowardice, and genes that code for bravery. If brave individuals were unable to propagate their genes over many generations, then the genes that code for braveness would die out and yes the cowardice genes would be the most successful. However to make this statement about war, you have to make sooooo many assumptions.

 

Have the brave reproduced before going to war?

 

Does the war exist over thousands of years?

 

And so on, ad infinitum....

 

The most successful genes, are those that allow for reproduction.

[Will H]

I'm going to put my form of natural selection in a different way than the OP.

 

 

 

Let's say that we took away all modern medicines, injections received at birth, and kill all [developmentally delayed]/deformed babies at birth.

 

 

 

Well since people just a few hundred years ago died of something as simple as a cold, we can say that those who survived the illnesses naturally became stronger to that certain sickness. If most people eventually died off because of all diseases and only those immune to everything survived, then they could reproduce and create another perfect generation, assuming that those who didn't get the positive traits died.

 

 

 

Now modern medicine undoes natural selection, making those sickly kids that should have died survive and live to have children. For instance, if you know anyone that takes allergy medicines for a food, they should know that their bodies natural function to fight that infection will go down since they have a foreign source doing the work for them. Now, if they suddenly stop taking that medicine, the next time that they have allergies, it will be twice as bad as it was before they originally starting taking the medicine.

 

 

 

Therefore, the perfect society would not have the need for any type of medicine. Heck, it could be compared to evolution (although that is not my belief).

 

 

 

I guess I'm somewhat of a hypocrite though, considering that I would have died long ago by my standards. I guess all of us here wouldn't qualify, but then again, we're not perfect beings either :P.

 

You're right, modern medicine does repress natural selection. But the problem is that the thought of allowing millions to die for the sake of slightly improving the health next generation is intolerable when we could improve the health of this and the next generation by a much larger margin right now.

 

Evolution isn't always about the search for the 'perfect being'. Natural selection itself has been influenced by humans (i.e. artificial selection) producing plants and animals that would no longer survive without our aid. That's hardly a move towards the benefit of the species.

 

I don't think bravery would be such a negative genetic trait, if it is genetic, to merit something which would solely cause the death of enough individuals for natural selection to occur in a vast population. It's probably ideal to have a balance between bravery and cowardice. If you're very brave, then getting killed in a war/being trampled by a rampaging mammoth is more likely. If you're very cowardly, meeting a girl and having a family/ taking out said rampaging mammoth for food is less likely. Therefore, balance is best.

[mmmcannibalism]

natural selection is a process of change not a process of improvement. Modern medicine has altered natural selection, and the removal of it would alter the current path. If we were to suddenly need to go back to hunting large game for our sole source of food(without technology) clearly humanity would undergo a good bit of change.

 

 

 

I think the best example of this is of a moth in I believe britain. There were white and black moths of the same species, the trees in the area had white bark which gave the white moths better camoflage from predators. This led to an increase in the appearence of the "white" trait until something important happened, the industrial revolution. Soot from nearby factories soon turned the tree trunks black and gave the black moth the camoflage advantage. After a few generations, the populations of black and white moths had flipped. The black moth was in now way superior to the white moth, situations however let natural selection "favor" the black moth.

[Zierro]

There is no nature "vs" nurture. There is only nature AND nurture. It's not either one, it's both.

 

 

 

You really think bravery comes down to genetics more than experience? In this context, it is nature VS nurture.

[EdgedThesis]

There is no nature "vs" nurture. There is only nature AND nurture. It's not either one, it's both.

 

 

 

You really think bravery comes down to genetics more than experience? In this context, it is nature VS nurture.

 

 

 

Every personality trait has a physical basis.

 

Something like bravery could come down to a chemical tendency to fight or fly.

 

 

 

Yeah?

[Zierro]

I'm not saying that there is absolutely no nature, but that nurture outweighs it. I'd consider myself a very self-conscious person when I was younger, but after several experiences I've become much different. I don't see how bravery would be much different. I think of nature as soft clay and nurture as the mold. Nurture is what changes your nature.

 

 

 

That is what the phrase "Nature VS Nurture" means. It is questioning which factor plays more of a role in a certain scenario, and personality traits belong more under nurture if you ask me.