Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Warfare as cooperative behavior?

Expand Messages
  • Rick O'Gorman
    The problem here is that your example is a binary all-or-nothing example, resting entirely on genetic determinism. You are right that captured females could
    Message 1 of 240 , Oct 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The problem here is that your example is a binary all-or-nothing
      example, resting entirely on genetic determinism. You are right that
      captured females could introduce more selfish mutants, but this assumes
      that (a) the victorious group was homogeneous to begin with; (b) that
      the defeated group was that different genetically; (c) that cheaters
      will get to survive in the new group--humans are a low reproducing
      species and there is time to determine selfish individuals; (d) that
      behaviour is simply a matter of gene-->behaviour. The human species has
      been evolving over millions of years and any two groups in conflict are
      unlikely to differ enormously on any particular trait. It is a question
      of refinement over time. And often victorious groups just slaughter
      everyone or rape the women without bringing them into their own
      groups--an exporting of "altruistic" (pro-group warfare) genes.

      In hunter-gatherer groups, where conflict arises, it is not on the scale
      of wiping out groups but more attritional, with the odd individual being
      picked off here and there, perhaps a few on some occasions. I'm not sure
      how that impacts altruism at all, either way.

      Rick O'Gorman

      Ligesh wrote:
      > For me, the issue with group-selection is the problem of cheating mutant. Ironically, it is the victory in a battle that will ultimately lead to the demise of a co-operative group. A victory in a battle would always involve capture of females. The geographical proximity of the groups would mean that they have the same physical features. In other words, the captured females would be indistinguishable from the females of the group. Now the females who are captured is from a selfish group, and will carry the selfishness gene. Since they are physically indistinguishable, the children of these captured females--who are selfish mutants--will have an advantage over the natives, and in a few generations, the group will be overrun by the selfish gene.
      >
      > As I said, the higher the group cohesion, the easier the victory in battles, the faster is the influx of selfish mutants, and faster is the collapse group cohesion. So how do you deal with this?
      >
      >
      > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 05:29:41PM +0100, Rick O'Gorman wrote:
      >> Mark,
      >>
      >> How can you just assert this:
      >>
      >> "The point being (Williams 1966) that because the pace of differential
      >> reproduction is almost always much more rapid at the level of the
      >> individual relative to the group or species, traits are most
      >> appropriately viewed as adaptations at the individual level."
      >>
      >> What matters is how much gene replication is driven by
      >> between-individual selection and group-level selection (which you could
      >> view as above-individual interactions). Thus the following is misleading:
      >>
      >> rate of differential reproduction of the replicators that occurs as a
      >> consequence of the differential rates of reproduction among vehicles at
      >> different levels of organization
      >>
      >> Groups don't need to replicate faster than individuals per se; effects
      >> on gene replication due to individual sel have less of an impact than
      >> higher-level sel.
      >>
      >> Williams' characterising of GS is very misleading and flawed. He uses
      >> strained analogies to make his point and his representation of the
      >> process is 40 years old. Much has occurred since that refines things,
      >> and it doesn't come down to whether individuals or groups reproduce fastest.
      >>
      >> Rick O'Gorman
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >

      --
      Rick O'Gorman, PhD
      Psychology
      Faculty of Development and Society
      Collegiate Crescent Campus,
      Sheffield Hallam University,
      Sheffield
      S10 2BP

      Phone: 0114 225 5555
      Fax: 0114 225 4449

      http://www.ricknchris.me.uk/rick/

      To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
      --Mark Twain
    • Julienne
      ... There are U.S. females being murdered in this attack on Iraq. Julienne Cling to the Wreckage - Barry Sonnenfeld Julienne s Blog:
      Message 240 of 240 , Oct 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:33 AM 10/6/2007 -0400, Mark Hubey wrote:


        1) Maybe they had female liberation back then too
        2) He said "the first person"(...)

        So now the story can be understood in a more sophisticated mode, e.g.
        everyone can be sacrificed (e.g. war)
        for the good of the whole (e.g. nation). We have gone back to
        sacrificing young males again. IT was tried again
        in modern Israel (drafting females and sending them to the front) and
        they gave up on it very quickly. For one
        thing, if the opposing fighters knew they were fighting females they
        refused to give up no matter what, so they
        caused even more problems. First there was the shame of surrendering to
        females, then there was the fruits of victory if they won!

        There are U.S. females being murdered in this attack
        on Iraq.

        Julienne

        Cling to the Wreckage - Barry Sonnenfeld
        Julienne's Blog: www.myspace.com/youandthecosmos. New Blog: Addiction
        Radio: "You and the Cosmos" WHRWFM.org, 90.5 FM, 4:30pm, EDST, Wednesdays
        Join us at EvolPsych@yahoogroups.com

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.