BIO 358 2 Flashcards
natural selection
-amoral not immoral
genetic relatedness is NOT the same thing as genetic similarity or identity
- probability of a gene being identical bc relatedness
- genetic relatedness is measured by looking at genetic sequencing
hamiltons law
-C<br></br>
indiscriminate cooperation
- dont care who you cooperate with
- rapidly eliminates mutations
- generates more wealth and cooperation
kin-specific cooperation
- mutations rapidly takes over population
- not better off
thought experiment
- create a population that is genetically uniform and engineer them so that they cooperate indiscriminately
- over time it will start accumulating genetic variation
- will produce kin specific cooperation
- kin specific cooperation does better and takes over the population
- generation X- perfectly genetically uniform (they have a kin specific cooperation mutation)
r
- sibling- 50%
- first cousin- 12.5%
- second cousin- 3.125%
- drives social cooperation
gene
unit of interest
kin-specific cooperation infanticide study
- white footed mouse; field volvs?
- animal will have four children but maybe only 2 will survive
- to minimize competitive and increase chances of their babies survival they kill non-kin
- infanticide of non-kin
- killers dont kill in their immediate area
- male and female killers
human breeding behavior are kin-selected
-
breast feeding
- males are different then females bc he cannot be sure that the child is his (she could have mated with someone else)
- this is why males dont breast feed
- babies are closer to the mom
- similar in humans and non-kin
if the parents die older relatives take over
- similar in humans and non-kin
- older relatives on the mothers side
kin-selected cooperative behavior
-humans retained
kin-selective competitive behavior
- humans suppress
- humans have ethical sense
- mental part of this is proximal cause
- the ultimate cause is coercive
- we suppress this but it still exists; just at much smaller rates than non-kin
public lives
-revolutionized
byproduct mutualism
-during sex there is a brief moment of the absence of conflict of interest for non-human and humans
incest
- produce offspring more related than each of them
- inbreeding causes mutation
- inbreeding depression
- strong selection to outbreeding
non-kin sexual behavior
-during sex there is a brief moment of the absence of conflict of interest
homicide
a powerful source of evidence to test theories of human social behavior
- humans dont tell us about private bad information
- nonhuman are 100 fold more likely to kill compared to humans
step-fathers
- may more likely to kill children than natural parent
- about 70 fold more likely
- more than 1000 fold less likely to do compared to nonanimals though
reproductive value
- what an individual is worth to its design information
- children were less of value (likely to die of starvation)
- peak at 20ish
- newborn is half as valuable as a teenager to its parent
- newborns are more likely to be killed
- if your 40 and have a child you are less likely to kill than a 20 year old due to old age
maternal infanticide strategy vs no maternal infanticide strategy in animals
- low resources
- extreme threat
- in these conditions the maternal infanticidal mom will be at an advantage
- in stressful environments moms kill babies
- the babies die and mother lives rather then them all dying
maternal infanticide strategy vs no maternal infanticide strategy in humans
- in a stressful environment (no money, partner
- humans will do this too but rates are much less
- proximal cause- her depression
- ultimate cause- stressful environment
scientific requirements
- within rules of how natural selection works in the moment
- do not reverse cause and effect (no long term strategy)
- must emerge from a kin selected strategy (reductionism)
- could not emerge in order to manage conflict of interest (not reverse)
selective pressure
- humans put selective pressure on each other
- self domestication allowed by unprecedented access
exceptions to non-human non-kin cooperation
- rare past adaptive misfire in the present (not selected for variation) -> rare
- by-product mutualism
- nonkin cooperation on a very small scale -> must have social coercion on a very small scale
non-kin cooperation on a very small scale (non-human)
-is able to happen if there is social coercion on a very small scale
human social coercion: how is it different
- with us every second of the day
- vast
- large scale
leaf-cutter ant
-small scale cooperation and coercion
kin selection
- helping reproduction of close relatives
- social breeding
- bee-eater birds
- wolves
hymenopteran
- haploid -> male (one day a year)
- diploid -> female
bees/ants
- sisters kill each others children
- worker policing -> do not reproduce a lot
- self domestication
- default to another strategy bc laying eggs is not successful (sisters will kill)
- cut off the siblings from raising their children so they could raise their own
- then they would raise each others once born
self herding: group selection fallacy
- herd of prey will run away and jump to prove their health
- they do this to make the other in the pack look weaker
- non-human groups do not cooperate for the greater benefit of the group -> social cheaters are more fit
self domestication
-when social environment puts strong selective pressure on genetics
free riders
- social cheater
- most fit
- these will blow up in a society bc it is the most fit strategy
- this is why group cooperation doesnt evolve
ants and aphids
- few conflicts of interest
- ants have infinite coercive power over aphids -> domestication
- ants limit conflict of interest between the aphids
social revolution
- practical control of non-kin conflict of interest
- inexpensive coercion of and by adults
expensive suppression of conflict of interest
- proximal vs remote killing
- proximal killing is very expensive -> violence and injury
- monkeys -> avoid infanticide but at a cost
ostracizing cooperators
- ostracize free riders- make it costly to resist ostracize
- benefit > Ccoop + Ccoerc
- group cooperates and free rider steals some of the benefit at cost of resisting ostracism
remote killers
-from a distance
-throwing and guns
-easy to ostracize free riders
-10x more threat for the free rider than in proximal killing
-10x less risk for ostracizing cooperators
-leads to self domestication
b - Ccoop > Ccoerc
Lanchesters square law
- 10x short time of conflict
- 10x reduced risk per unit time for ostracizing cooperators with remote killing
- 10 x 10 = 100 fold less cost
proximal killing
b - Ccoop < Ccoerc
- costly for both groups
- high chance on injury
law on non kin
benefit > Ccoop + Ccoerc
synchronized conjoint throwing
- strength in numbers
- you cant dodge
- revolutionized remote killing
- democratic origins*
- kin selective group started this -> led to kin selective independent cooperation