Of Peanuts and Survival
This is going to sound like a completely heartless post. And in some ways it is, but I hope everyone can read through to the underlying message.
In recent years, peanuts have been getting great attention from the media. From schools banning peanut butter sandwiches to peanut allergies being used to kill a character in the da vinci code to airplanes announcing that there are passengers with peanut allergies on board.
And so the measures go on to protect our fellow homo sapiens.
But... whatever happened to survival of the fittest?
In a Darwinian society, genes causing peanut allergies would have been severely in remission, as any dominant strains would have been caused by the early (and tragic) passing on of any individual unfortunate enough to have inherited such a gene. The only genes to survive would be recessive genes which would only manifest should by some low probability coincide in unfortunate individuals.
BUT, what happens when we look after each other too much? Said recessive genes would then have a much higher chance of survival, as even individuals with a dual-recessive combo would survive in today's society, and when they have children with someone who shows no symptoms, then a 100% x potentially 50% chance of peanut allergy gives a higher chance of peanut allergies in the offspring than (potentially 50%)^2. And so perhaps we will have an increasing number of people allergic to peanuts. (Which does throw up some interesting long term plays by the way).
In making rational choices to protect each other, we actually end up with a suboptimal scenario for society as a whole.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... don't always protect the weak. Be kind and considerate by all means, but when it becomes a scenario where the weak NEEDS it to survive, then you're really doing everyone here a disfavour.
Now excuse me while I go throw some peanuts at people. Fortunately for SCB I can only afford the cheapo peanuts so she's safe =p
In recent years, peanuts have been getting great attention from the media. From schools banning peanut butter sandwiches to peanut allergies being used to kill a character in the da vinci code to airplanes announcing that there are passengers with peanut allergies on board.
And so the measures go on to protect our fellow homo sapiens.
But... whatever happened to survival of the fittest?
In a Darwinian society, genes causing peanut allergies would have been severely in remission, as any dominant strains would have been caused by the early (and tragic) passing on of any individual unfortunate enough to have inherited such a gene. The only genes to survive would be recessive genes which would only manifest should by some low probability coincide in unfortunate individuals.
BUT, what happens when we look after each other too much? Said recessive genes would then have a much higher chance of survival, as even individuals with a dual-recessive combo would survive in today's society, and when they have children with someone who shows no symptoms, then a 100% x potentially 50% chance of peanut allergy gives a higher chance of peanut allergies in the offspring than (potentially 50%)^2. And so perhaps we will have an increasing number of people allergic to peanuts. (Which does throw up some interesting long term plays by the way).
In making rational choices to protect each other, we actually end up with a suboptimal scenario for society as a whole.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... don't always protect the weak. Be kind and considerate by all means, but when it becomes a scenario where the weak NEEDS it to survive, then you're really doing everyone here a disfavour.
Now excuse me while I go throw some peanuts at people. Fortunately for SCB I can only afford the cheapo peanuts so she's safe =p
posted by ~Z~ at
11:34 PM
|
0 comments
