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

[SR Ballard]

Well, if the gene is sex-differentiated it would prove even more useful.

SR Ballard

> On Aug 22, 2020, at 12:59 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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 population.
> 
>  John K Clark   
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200822/95035528/attachment.htm>