= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Luke_Grecki comments on Group selection update - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
It might make more sense to think of one technology or one form of social organization pushing others out of existence. Human beings (and the rest of the environment) could be thought of as the resources used for propagation.
In this context group selection seems like an obviously important idea for understanding certain salient phenomena.
I think most people find it easier to believe in group selection for altruism in the evolution of culture than in the evolution of organisms. For one thing, people think about culture and can change the rules, so that complex adaptations, like punishing free-riders, can appear quickly.
ETA: the evolution of multicellularity seems like a good candidate for group selection to me. Once it has been achieved, few would call it altruism or a group, but the intermediate stages probably require group selection.
I'm putting this on the comment about culture because multicellularity involves commitment mechanisms, which are like ways of punishing free-riders.
One level's organism is another level's gene? Not exactly, but there may be some use for that idea.