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.
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.