From: [email protected]

{snipped - see 036a, 036b, 036c}

In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] wrote:


Well, one of the problems I'm having in understanding all this comes from
the idea of 'ruthless selfishness'. I don't see how evolution really
suggests that 'ruthless selfishness' would be the idea; it seems too
simplistic. This seems to be used to imply germlin like genes lurking in
every cell maliciously rubbing their greedy little tendrils together and
plotting world domination like some B-grade villain. However, if we are
to accept that genes (or memes) manage to carry information about
behaviour then surely we could accept that some limitation to ruthless
selfishness could be carried and with good reason - if the organism is
_too_ selfish (in a 'nasty' sense of destroying others and promoting only
their own welfare) then within a social species wouldn't there be some
risk of pissing off (scaring) enough of the other tribe/group members
that the organism would get itself killed? This certainly seems to happen
in reality and is popular in fable so perhaps we could suppose that while
selfish genes survive, those that provide impetus to make the organism so
selfish they seem dangerous to the group are killed off or deprived in
various ways - enough that their reproductive potential is curbed anyway.


Mick.
--
"Many a mickle makes a muckle".
[email protected]
[email protected]


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.