WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

868

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

tl; dr: Normally relatives will care for young since they're more genetically related than to strangers, so they are still helping their genes even though it's not their offspring. But here they also find that members of the species will help the group even if not closely related, because the group itself offers survival advantages from predators, thus it benefits the helper enough to be worth it. They note that the former caring-for-relatives occurs when predators aren't as big an issue, and the latter when it's a dangerous world.

Ethnocentric nationalism versus diversity and the (((ever-present predator))), basically.

When there is a survival advantage to group living, the study reveals two ways in which natural selection causes subordinate group members to help with caring for the young of dominant breeders. One possibility applies if the young are closely related, e.g. the siblings of the caregivers, as outlined above. In this situation, the care increases the probability that the genes shared between helpers and receivers of help are spread to the next generation (a mechanism referred to as "kin selection").

The second way involves what is known as "individual selection," which is not contingent on relatedness levels. When the altruistic brood care provided results in more young animals surviving, the social group expands. In turn, this increases the survival chances of the caregivers, because it reduces their own risk of falling victim to a predator, for example. It hence increases the probability that they will be able to breed successfully later on. Both selection mechanisms interact positively with each other.

Which selection mechanism prevails depends on the environmental conditions

"A key finding of our study is that the environmental context determines which of these two selection mechanisms comes into play, i.e. which one is more significant for the evolution of cooperative breeding," says Irene Garcia Ruiz. If the environmental conditions are favorable (few predators), then kin selection is the more important mechanism selecting for cooperative care. If the environmental conditions are less favorable (more predators), then increasing the survival chances of individuals by raising the number of group members is a more important selection mechanism causing non-parental offspring care.

[–] 0 pt

Dostoyevsky write that every act of altruism are de facto act of selfishness.... Well, when you 'help' someone, do 'good thing', etc. you feel deep inner satisfaction. Simply you feel good. On the other side assholes which never do something really good in his life fell constant anxiety, they are hollow inside.... they are un-happy. So try to be better to others, for your own good. But not like leftards, they live in lie, delusions. Hus entire life is fake, so they try to be "nice, kind, selfless, etc.". But they fake it, this are just virtual signaling, inside they are bag of shit, they are dead inside... and they know it. This are reason why they fall in tantrum when you point on his lies. Truth hurts.

From evolutionary side, species or society where members help each other, are stronger, more resilient. So they have better chance to survive and prosper. Don't need university to see such obvious things.

[–] 1 pt

Agreed we don't need a university to see such things. In fact it's the universities that came up with the ridiculous notion that such things aren't obvious and apparent and need to be proven. It's like the university's coming up with the notion that you must prove an animal is somehow doing things for the same reason human is that an animal can think have emotions etc etc. It's quite obvious to anybody outside of the University that animals and humans are very similar literally made at the same stuff so their brains and everything else should work the same with perhaps some variation due to size however it was the universities which impose the idea that humans and animals were different and this animals required a different level of proof to assert the obvious.

[–] 0 pt

In an environment of plenty where group cooperation is not necessary to create the minimal sustenance necessary for any individual to live such as in the African plains when your food is literally walking by you everyday then selfish behavior is more rewarding because you really just want to stop the other guy from stealing your food that's walking by your house everyday. In an environment where cooperation is required for anyone to survive such as in a colder climate where a lot of energy must be created by more than one individual to create shelter food stores and other things necessary for anyone to survive then unselfish behavior rewards the whole group and is therefore rewarded in evolution.