Science Fiction & Philosophy discussion

A question that fascinates me is the difference between advantages for the species and those for the individual. I can see why reproduction benefits the species by passing on genes, and I can see that evolved humans have several motivations for reproduction, including the obvious one. But I can't see the advantage to our individual ancestors in the days when their intelligence was lower, their communicative skills were almost non-existent, and their daily priorities revolved around their own survival.

The ability to procreate seems to be hard-wired back to the earliest cell division but, even if procreation leads to offspring, what individual survival benefit was bestowed upon a mother to nurture her child - and much less the father. Hunting for food, defending against predators and spending years until the offspring is able to survive unsupported - why?

Have others here pondered this question, or perhaps you already know the answer?

Peter wrote: "But I can't see the advantage to our individual ancestors in the days when their intelligence was lower, their communicative skills were almost non-existent, and their daily priorities revolved around their own survival."

I'd say for an individual it is a by-product of pleasure - both sexes (and here I go biological, not gender) like stimulation of genitalia (see cats and dogs as well for animals that we can see in our mostly urban lives), and this pleasure is a nature's way to promote reproduction

Oleksandr wrote: "Peter wrote: "But I can't see the advantage to our individual ancestors in the days when their intelligence was lower, their communicative skills were almost non-existent, and their daily prioritie..."

I'm not referring to the act of procreation, rather the consequences! If offspring weren't nurtured, they'd (depending upon species) die pretty quickly. We are one of the species that looks after our young for a long time before they leave the nest. During that time, we elect to give up certain freedoms, share hard won resources and take on
risks. Why didn't we just have our fun and leave our offspring to their own fate?

Clearly our instincts have driven us to take care of our offsprings and the species wouldn't have survived if we didn't. But evolution rewards selfish behaviour so how did it persuade us to do something against our individual needs?

Peter wrote: "I'm not referring to the act of procreation, rather the consequences! If offspring weren't nurtured, they'd (depending upon species) die pretty quickly. "

Okay, there it is harder but not impossible - we have birds that create some pretty complex nests and we're fine that it is their instinctive behavior... while people need to care much longer for their young, it is difference in quantity, not quality from dogs or apes IMHO.

To go back to your original question, Peter, reproduction doesn't 'benefit the species'—or benefit the individual either necessarily. It's all about genes I'm afraid. Individuals, species and all the various behaviours individuals get up to are all just ways natural selection has produced, across four billion years or so, by means of which genes perpetuate and multiply themselves. And with animals, those ways include instincts—including the maternal and paternal instincts.

If altruistic behaviour works out better, overall, for the particular combinations of genes which produce it, then it spreads. They are the real beneficiaries of that 'altruism' (which isn't true altruism at all) not individuals.

'The Selfish Gene' (Richard The Selfish Gene is really the question behind my question and I agree it's all about the genes - the real beneficiaries, but reproduction does benefit the species, Richard, without it the species becomes extinct.

However, behaviour, whether altruistic or otherwise only provides a retrospective answer - unless viewed from the interests of genes. For a human, or any other animal, the sequence of events is;
1. Procreation
2. Nurturing the offspring
3. Any benefits that could enhance natural selection

As 2 & 3 occur after DNA has been passed on, they cannot be inherited behaviours that are operating to improve the survival prospects of the individual.

What I'm avoiding saying is that it is as if there is much older genetic coding for these behaviours that has not arisen as a consequence of Darwinian natural selection or the survival of the fittest. No amount of billions of years would otherwise induce the parental instincts that conflict with the survival prospects of the parent.

I reflect on the common thoughts shared just before death. These are overwhelmingly about the persons involvement in raising their family or loved ones, not work or accolades won. The human brain operates with complex networks of learning algorithms and structures inherent in the design of our brains. The need to care and be cared for seems to be inherent in the wiring. The proliferation of humanity is highly connected to the ability to collaborate, learn and work as a team. Even today, self worth is a function of the number of people you are connected to and have influence over. Sometimes it is useful to consider the organism as the collective rather than the individuals.

I would say that continuation of life is the main imperative encoded into every aspect of living organisms, from genes through to individual and collective behaviour. Natural selection guides the evolution of the most successful designs and behaviours at both individual and collective levels. Success is determined by continuation of the design.

I guess you see humans growing up humans as unique, distinct behavior. However, stories of real life Mowglies show that animals can nurture human kids to reproductive age - e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_c... - while most of them were not infants, there are several from 3 months to a year

I don't restrict description of animal behaviour to their own species only - there are many examples of interspecies cooperation in nature, which enhance the survival chances for each species. In fact, the study of cooperative behaviour within and between species is really quite interesting and it often belies the earlier theories of survival of the fittest in an environment shaped only by competition.

"Success is determined by continuation of the design." Yes, but success only for the genes and the species, not the individual.

Whilst there may be the odd example of interspecies fostering, I think we'd all agree that the human race would have died out a long time ago if new-born infants were abandoned at birth. But whether parental or fostering, I agree that this is a behaviour that seems to belie the survival of the fittest in a competitive environment theory. So where does it come from?

Instances of random variation affirmed by natural selection?

Khira wrote: "Instances of random variation affirmed by natural selection?"

If behaviour is post-natal it cannot be passed on genetically and affirmed by natural selection can it?

But the genes you're talking about aren't only part of the DNA of the mother who is giving this maternal protection, they're also part of the DNA of the baby receiving it—and who will eventually, if all goes well, treat her babies the same way.

Again, going back to message 1: 'I can see why reproduction benefits the species by passing on genes...' is the wrong way around. Reproduction benefits genes (in fact, vast combinations of genes) by perpetuating the species. Species—like individual animals and plants, like behaviours of all kinds, like communities of living things, like entire ecosystems in fact—are constructs for the proliferation of genes. Ugly maybe, but that's what The Selfish Gene was saying.

Peter wrote: "If behaviour is post-natal it cannot be passed on genetically and affirmed by natural selection can it?"

Behaviour is determined by a combination of nature and nurture - i.e. genetics and upbringing. The latter, in turn, is a product of various forms of communication, which for humans, involves concepts of culture, ideology, and morality. This means that the mechanisms determining behaviour are not restricted to genes alone, at least not for humans.

Also, interspecies fostering amongst mammals may be just outliers, but interspecies cooperation more broadly is definitely not - there are plenty of examples of this amongst the plants and the fungi kingdom.

Peter wrote: ""Whilst there may be the odd example of interspecies fostering, I think we'd all agree that the human race would have died out a long time ago if new-born infants were abandoned at birth"

Once again I guess it is not unique for humans - abandoned kittens, puppies, nestlings will die as well, endangering their species. As to seeing it as after-natal behavior I disagree, I see it this way: you are born with 'good parenting gene', you care for your offspring, improving their chances for survival and spreading your beneficial mutation

Richard wrote: "But the genes you're talking about aren't only part of the DNA of the mother who is giving this maternal protection, they're also part of the DNA of the baby receiving it—and who will eventually, i..."

I think there is a misunderstanding of the essential point of my question. It's not about 'whether' humans or other species care for their own or fostered young, quite clearly we do. Also, I'm arguing that reproduction DOES benefit the genes, not that it doesn't. And the species by (as Richard says) perpetuating it.

'The Selfish Gene' describes our genes as if we are merely hosts in their service but it fails to develop why this should be. Probably because Richard Dawkins wishes to steer clear of any suggestion of a metaphysical/religious mechanism. But as far as he takes it, the argument that everything seems to serve the genes is compelling.

However, the question of why is a mystery because it implies agency on behalf of a molecule. And the question of how parenting instincts were transmitted between early human (or other) generations isn't answered by genetics alone - as Khira says. It's quite easy to look to cultural, ideological or moral influences in modern humans, but to get here we had to start well before those 'behaviours' were exhibited. Nobody told the inarticulate cave dwellers there was a reason to protect, feed and risk their own survival for their offspring. I am posing this as another mystery similar to the mystery of what 'motive force' for want of a better description drives evolution to optimise genetic transmission above all else?

'The Selfish Gene' describes our genes as if we are merely hosts in their service but it fails to develop why this should be.'

"However, the question of why is a mystery because it implies agency on behalf of a molecule."

I think the answer to 'why' is that the genes and us would not be here if they didn't. Success in evolutionary terms means continuation. Genes that did not dictate procreation of their hosts did not continue to be produced. But it is a brute, physical dictatorship - obviously genes do not possess agency in the sense the word is normally used. But physical necessity is a type of agency, and that molecules certainly have. The physicality of genetic activity is quite surprising -at least I was surprised. It is all about molecular physics.

"I think the answer to 'why' is that the genes and us would not be here if they didn't. "

That's not really a 'why' because us (or our genes) not being here is a valid alternative. One that probably exists in most of the universe.

Whilst agreeing that "Genes that did not dictate procreation of their hosts did not continue to be produced", I'm not sure about genes that determine the behaviour of nurturing offspring (if genes play any part in this). Such coding wouldn't have any survival benefit for the carrier and therefore the same statement couldn't logically be true.

If offspring are not nurtured, no more genes...pretty simple.

Perhaps you are wondering why there is 'life' at all? My answer is because life is another path for energy to disperse The dispersion of energy seems to be the overall game plan of the universe. Sometimes there are little eddies that seem to go against this prime directive, but overall the net pattern of energy dispersion remains intact. (I could have used the word 'entropy' in my explanation, but it has so many vague connotations I prefer to avoid it. Some physicists question whether it is a valid concept at all - see Roger Penrose's 'Cycles of Time' etc.)

"If offspring are not nurtured, no more genes...pretty simple."

Clearly our genes can't know that! So each newly born infant inherits those genes that code for nurturing behaviour along with the trigger to initiate that behaviour years later when the infant also becomes a parent? Is this a hypothesis or known fact?

I'm pleased you avoided the word entropy because it seems to me that life is the exact opposite of entropy. It may be a path for energy to disperse but it relies upon countless layers of coalescing molecules, cells, tissues, organs, etc in a highly ordered manner determined by a detailed genetic plan.

As David points out, genes are molecules. Describing them as 'selfish' or as having agency in their own right is nonsensical. They are one of the mechanisms by which physiological and behavioral design is replicated through generations (communication being another mechanism). Genetic mutations are random and, combined with natural selection, will lead to prevalence of nurturing behaviour over time.

Genetic mutations actually are an environmental influence. In high energy environments, or environments with novel chemistry, more mutations occur than in environments that the organism has evolved to exist in. It is a way for changes in the environment to produce changes in the organism that allow it to survive in the new environment....at least on the whole. Many individuals suffer from the mutations, but there are always those that are made more fit...