Re: Evolutionary interplay of caution and boldness in populations


<stargene@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dll6at$1qo3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> A recent study in the journal Cell, by Gleb Shumyatsky and
others,
> indicates that the difference between "normally cautious
mice" and
> "bold mice" is one gene, which governs the protein
stathmin in the
> amygdala. The ramifications for drug and even gene
therapy are
> obvious, yet it seems to me that a larger and more complex
issue
> may loom in the wings here:
>
> It seems to me that the survival of a population and
indeed a species
> may often hinge on the complexity or flexibility of its
response to
> environmental pressures. I can imagine times when, for
example,
> caution and even timidity might confer greater survival
for a popu-
> lation and other times when bold, dynamic actions would be
the
> more appropriate survival response. The great variety of
possible
> human responses to environmental pressures comes to mind:
a
> human community having many different kinds of people --
with
> many different response potentials in different
individuals, each
> having different sensibilities and capacities -- will
likely have a
> greater flexibility of response and a greater
survivability. Ie: there
> is a place and time for the cautious and a place and time
for the
> bold 'mice'.
>
> Gene
>
> Question: What computer modeling has been done exploring
the
> evolutionary/survival value, for an artificial population,
of a wide
> range vs. a narrow range of responses, in environments
having
> different degrees of complexity and severity in their
impacts on
> populations/species?

The study you cite is very fascinating! The argument you
make re "flexibility" is certainly a good one, and I agree
with it, but I think the question you pose is much too
general--what options must one consider in these ranges,
narrow to wide? ISTM that there are very few response
available to animals in response to _physical_
threats/changes in environment etc. anyway--i.e., the
question seems more appropriate to social/psychological
problems, and there would seem to be a plethora of options
there too. (note: I am only a layman in the bio-evo field,
so take this all
with a grain of salt.)

Robert Reich took an entire book ("Non Zero: the Logic of
Human Destiny") just to discuss the costs vs. benefits of
the 2-valued system involving cooperation vs. competition
through human history, and to generalize that (rather
tenuously from a game thy. concept) to postulate a long-term
general tendency towards the former. More complex option
systems might be impossible to tease out even in simulation.

I have a more pressing question: what if a drug or genetic
treatment became available to make people more cautious than
bold, say, to reduce crime or such (or vice versa too, to
make better cops, say,) would it ever become
legal?--could/should it ever have any use in society at
all...and what if it were used illegally? IOW, what good is
this knowledge to us? :) ...tonyC



.

Relevant Pages

  • Evolutionary interplay of caution and boldness in populations
    ... The ramifications for drug and even gene therapy are ... caution and even timidity might confer greater survival for a popu- ... more appropriate survival response. ... greater flexibility of response and a greater survivability. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Detecting input from two usb mouse
    ... > We have two usb mice connected to the system. ... but I suspect it is more likely that you will need to setup ... your own call back function/s in response to one of the mice drivers. ...
    (linux.redhat)