From: Omixochitl2002@yahoo.com   
      
   Raist  wrote in news:VBSob.78173$Tr4.201071@attbi_s03:   
      
   > Omixochitl wrote:   
   >   
   >> Raist  wrote in news:UMOob.77443$e01.257795@attbi_s02:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>Omixochitl wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in   
   >>>>news:dc4a405f.0310311828.172ef554@posting.google.com:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>u01mzb@abdn.ac.uk (FixinDixon) wrote in message   
   >>>>>news:<51f64020.0310310215.73958b5c@posting.google.com>...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>[snip]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>FixinDixon   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>The USA of course.  You don't become #1 by being nice.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>What did Germany do to become #1 50 years ago?   
   >>>>>What did the French do to become #1 150 years ago?   
   >>>>>What about the British before that?   
   >>>>>How about Spain before that?   
   >>>>>Italy?   
   >>>>>How about the Arabs?   
   >>>>>And the Mongols?   
   >>>>>And China?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>The list can go on and on for 3000 years, and probably even before   
   >>>>>that but we weren't writing things down yet.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>It's survival of the fittest.  Do what you can to secure your   
   >>>>>survival, even if it means colonizing and oppressing other people.   
   >>>>>Hell even if it means genocide.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Except that survival of the fittest has zilch to do with groups.   
   >>>>More like every gene for itself.  ;)   
   >>>   
   >>>Seriously, I would think that at a genetic and evolutionary level,   
   >>>survival of your family and immediate group (tribe) would be just as   
   >>>important as personal survival. Otherwise your genes will weaken and   
   >>>be diluted.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Nope.  To a gene inside you, the survival and reproductive prospects   
   >> of someone who shares 50% of your genes (your son, daughter, brother,   
   >> sister, etc.) is half as important as the survival and reproductive   
   >> prospects of someone who has 100% of your genes (you).  After all,   
   >> the genes only has a 50% chance of being inside that someone as well   
   >> as inside you.   
   >>   
   >> Likewise, to that gene, the survival and reproductive prospects of   
   >> someone who shares 25% of your genes (your grandson, granddaughter,   
   >> niece, nephew, etc.) is half as important as the survival and   
   >> reproductive prospects of someone who shares 50% of your genes and a   
   >> quarter as important as the survival and reproductive prospects of   
   >> someone who has 100% of your genes.   
   >   
   > In an evolutionary sense that 50% and 25% are pretty important. From a   
   > darwinian standpoint the survival of an individual will sway the gene   
   > pool less than the survival of an extended family of related   
   > individuals.  That is the way I see it, anyway.   
      
   Survival of relatives does have some sway, hence kinship selection   
   (including but not limited to parental care of offspring).  My point is   
   that group survival is still not *just as important to the gene* as   
   personal survival.  50% importance is pretty important, but it still   
   isn't 100%.  This is especially valid since biological group boundaries   
   are so fluid and fuzzy:   
      
   'If selection goes on between groups within a species, and between   
   species, why should it not also go on between larger groupings? Species   
   are grouped into genera, genera into orders, and orders into classes.   
   Lions and antelopes are both members of the class Mammalia, as are we.   
   Should we then expect lions to refrain from killing antelopes, "for the   
   good of the mammals"?' (Richard Dawkins, p.10 of _The Selfishy Gene_)   
      
   Likewise, mvillanu claimed that nations are the selection unit and you   
   just claimed that families are the selection unit.  They can't both be   
   the selection unit, and neither works as well as a selection unit as   
   genes do:   
      
   "Genes are competing directly with their alleles for survival, since   
   their alleles in the gene pool are rivals for their slot on the   
   chromosomes of future generations. Any gene that behaves in such a way   
   as to increase its own survival chances in the gene pool at the expense   
   of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously, tend to survive. The   
   gene is the basic unit of selfishness." (Dawkins, somewhere in chapter   
   3)   
      
   This also means that any gene which behaves in such as way as to   
   increase the survival chances of other alleles in the gene pool, "for   
   the good of the family" or nation or species or genera or whatever, at   
   the expense of itself will tend to not survive.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)