[ExI] Group Selection Advances

[hkhenson]

At 03:22 PM 5/1/2009, spike wrote:
>....
> >
> > Isn't this disproved by the falling birth rates in first
> > world societies?
> >
> > Developed societies are deciding that riches and a
> > comfortable lifestyle is preferable to the trouble and
> > expense of raising children.
> >
> > Surely it isn't in the self interest of the genes to reduce
> > reproduction?
> >
> > BillK
>
> >>humans evidently have all these meta-memes which mess with our instincts.
>spike
>
> >Could you be more specific?  I don't know what you might mean by this.
>Keith
>
>Keith and BillK, this gets to what I meant with the instincts comment.
>Humans don't act only on instinct.  We think, we look at the bigger picture.
>If we operated on instinct, we would mate like crazy.  Hmmm, we do mate like
>crazy.  OK bad example.  {8^D  We wouldn't work in an office 9 to 5 that's
>for sure.

Humans will do just about anything that gets them the wherewithal to 
live.  I am sure people were trading things far, far back into 
prehistory and doing things like chipping rocks for tribe members not 
so skilled at that.

>We choose our mates partly based their wealth for instance, or
>perceived stability, instead of the more standard instinctive stuff like the
>size and shape of the body, or perceived fertility, the stuff that is so
>popular in the rest of the animal kingdom.  Lucky for me.  {8^D

Ah, that's not exactly true.  Men are attracted to signs of 
fertility, of course, but especially when it comes to long term 
relations, i.e., the possibility of children, both men and women rate 
smartness very highly.

>This makes us a difficult subject to study from an evolutionary point of
>view.

Maybe so, but there are a load of people doing it.

Keith