From: Kenneth Van Oost (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 22 Jan 2006 - 14:46:42 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Henson <email@example.com>
> "Wanton killing," that is killing without some inclusive fitness benefit
> your genes, does not make sense because killing has always been a risky
> business. In general the psychological traits leading to killing
> con-specifics would only be activated when the inclusive benefit to genes
> exceeds the potential risk.
> The problem is that "values generally shared" is dependent on
> conditions, recent history *and* prospects for the future.
<< But what about the Crusades !? I understand that a genetic benefit is
in this matter, but how many of those soldiers did return to tell !?
And were there for instance enough ladies waiting !?
Or did the soldiers, keeping the potential risk in mind, make out in the
left behind a bunch of kids with a exclusive benefit in their genes !?
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 22 Jan 2006 - 16:55:40 GMT