However, one might ask whether totalitarian regimes actually kill enough people, and whether the selection for altruistic individuals, is enough to make a difference.
To talk about specifics:
My sense is that in many regimes, people are killed for reasons that have little to do with altruistic behavior. I would not take for granted that people sent to death camps in Germany, or Gulags in the USSR, were sent there because of altruistic behavior. My impression is that the preponderant fraction of people killed were chosen because of their religious/class/ideology/ethnic identity made them suspect. Is there reason to think that, say, Trotskyites were more likely to be altruistic, or otherwise had interesting genetic differences?
Except perhaps Cambodia and North Korea, my impression is that the total number of people killed was less than 10% of the population—is that likely to have significant genetic consequences?
I would think that memetic pressure would be more significant than genetic pressure. It would be interesting to know whether murdering ideological non-conformists in generation N limits the willingness of members of generation N+ 3 to air public criticisms of the status quo. A hard hypothesis to test, unfortunately, due to there being many confounding effects.
Except perhaps Cambodia and North Korea, my impression is that the total number of people killed was less than 10% of the population—is that likely to have significant genetic consequences?
That depends on the number of alleles involved. The more alleles that are involved, the more it’s possible for them to be concentrated in a small number of individuals by chance.
I think you’re probably right—if these genes were strongly manifested in less than 10% of the population, then maybe they aren’t critical to society. (That’s an empirical question.)
One place to look would be criticisms of eugenics. If eugenics wouldn’t work because there aren’t a high-enough fraction of the population’s deleterious alleles in the bottom 1% (by some measure) of the population, then by the mirror image of that argument, selecting against altruism also wouldn’t “succeed”.
I would think that memetic pressure would be more significant than genetic pressure.
Maybe, but it’s less permanent, so less of a worry to me.
An interesting and sobering thought. [upvoted]
However, one might ask whether totalitarian regimes actually kill enough people, and whether the selection for altruistic individuals, is enough to make a difference.
To talk about specifics:
My sense is that in many regimes, people are killed for reasons that have little to do with altruistic behavior. I would not take for granted that people sent to death camps in Germany, or Gulags in the USSR, were sent there because of altruistic behavior. My impression is that the preponderant fraction of people killed were chosen because of their religious/class/ideology/ethnic identity made them suspect. Is there reason to think that, say, Trotskyites were more likely to be altruistic, or otherwise had interesting genetic differences?
Except perhaps Cambodia and North Korea, my impression is that the total number of people killed was less than 10% of the population—is that likely to have significant genetic consequences?
I would think that memetic pressure would be more significant than genetic pressure. It would be interesting to know whether murdering ideological non-conformists in generation N limits the willingness of members of generation N+ 3 to air public criticisms of the status quo. A hard hypothesis to test, unfortunately, due to there being many confounding effects.
That depends on the number of alleles involved. The more alleles that are involved, the more it’s possible for them to be concentrated in a small number of individuals by chance.
I think you’re probably right—if these genes were strongly manifested in less than 10% of the population, then maybe they aren’t critical to society. (That’s an empirical question.)
One place to look would be criticisms of eugenics. If eugenics wouldn’t work because there aren’t a high-enough fraction of the population’s deleterious alleles in the bottom 1% (by some measure) of the population, then by the mirror image of that argument, selecting against altruism also wouldn’t “succeed”.
Maybe, but it’s less permanent, so less of a worry to me.