[ExI] Did Evolution produce a gene for good soldiers?

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sat Aug 22 17:59:17 UTC 2020

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 1:20 AM Keith Henson via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> From capture-bonding, the easy to understand, nearly universal evolved
> human psychological trait. Being captured by neighboring tribes was a
> relatively common event for women in human history, if anything like the
> recent history of the few remaining primitive tribes. In some of those
> tribes (Yanomamo, for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is
> descended from a captive within the last three generations.*

If you're right then those women must have come from tribes that lost wars
because they didn't have the religious gene, or whatever the gene was that
was needed to make them or their offspring good soldiers, but nevertheless
the genes the women did have were quite successful evolutionarily speaking
even if they didn't ensure military victory. So a gene to give up, not make
trouble and to just surrender might have a better chance of getting into
the next generation than a gene to fight on heroically to the death against
impossible odds would. And if a gene can't do better at getting into the
next generation than the competition then it won't spread through the

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200822/97e562a1/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list