Can natural selection select for genes based on their utility at a group level?

[garbon]

I think most people generally agree that both have an impact.  The arguement is only based on what has the bigger impact.

Sounds like a fool's errand.

[garbon]

It is damaging to society at large.  Like a cancer.

How so?

[Queequeg]

Through most of human history there have been no celibate priestly casts. Shamans fucked around and still fuck around.

Priestly castes have usually had bizarre and nonsensical restrictions on them, sometimes they were sexual but not always.  I think there was always a principal that to be a priest you had to show you were somehow set apart from ordinary people.

True, but the idea that this was often, let alone usually, lifelong chastity is absurd.  For Middle Eastern and Carthaginian priestesses it was often the opposite- prostitution was a sacred practice reserved for priestesses. 

[Sheilbh]

Does the theory of evolution allow for the possibility of certain genes being selected for not because they are necessarily beneficial to the individual, but because they are beneficial to the survival/well-being of the society/group in which such genes are prevalent?

The question is (as usual for me) motivated by the existence of homosexuality. Obviously, it is not a trait that would be genetically beneficial for an individual, and as such it should "die out" in the populace. However, it seems that the number of gay people is fairly constant.

Not really but sort of, is my understanding.

From what I've read and heard the theory of a 'gay gene' is basically like the 'grandmother' theory.  There is no reason why a woman should stop having children at forty.  Except that for her children and her genes to survive then at some point it's actually better for her to have less children that survive (and have to compete less) than a huge number competing for a limited supply of food.  It is more useful for her to help her limited number of children rear grandchildren than to keep on popping them out.

Similarly with the 'big gay uncle theory'.  Basically for a woman's children and genes to survive it is useful to produce a non-reproductive child that will then support her other children and grandchildren.  I think that what's believed to be the gay gene is only present in men but looks to be carried by women.  So the fact that gays don't reproduce doesn't mean that the gene will die out because it's not really to do with them it's an advantage for their mother and their sisters.  Arguably that genetic stuff is part of the reason why, on average, the femal relatives of a gay man are considerably more fecund than the social norm.

So in a way the 'gay gene' helps the group, but it helps the group so an individual's genes and so on continue, rather than the group continuing.

Most of this came from a few articles I've read but I attended a lecture at Uni with a biologist friend on the subject.  Apparently Bristol's research focus in biology is largely to do with behaviour.  The guy did two one on this (which was serious) and the other on odd sexual/social things that he suggests have a biological-evolutionary reason - I can't remember most of them but I'll see if I can get a list because they were fascinating.

[Valmy]

Which would example prove my point, wouldn't it, that there isn't a "gay gene", right?

Yes I do not think it is genetic.  I think it just happens at random and I am not clear on the exact mechaism...I think your "proc" analogy is a good observation of how it appears.

But I could be wrong there could be a higher disposition of some families to having gay individuals,  I just don't think this is the case.

[Valmy]

Sounds like a fool's errand.

Not necessarily.  It has great impact on how you try to mold people in society.  If people believe people can be socialized to be a certain way versus people thinking it is largely futile then that could dramatically effect government policy and cultural values.

[Neil]

It is damaging to society at large.  Like a cancer.

How so?

It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.

[garbon]

It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.

How? I don't feel like I'm in a different faction.

[Sheilbh]

It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.

I hate individualism

[garbon]

Not necessarily.  It has great impact on how you try to mold people in society.  If people believe people can be socialized to be a certain way versus people thinking it is largely futile then that could dramatically effect government policy and cultural values.

So now you aren't talking just about sexuality, but about human behavior in general? Do you really want to paint with a broad brush and say that human behavior is largely driven by genetic factors?

[DGuller]

It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.

How? I don't feel like I'm in a different faction.

That's because you live in a city that completely belongs to your faction.

[garbon]

That's because you live in a city that completely belongs to your faction.

I haven't always lived here.

And it isn't like I dislike people who aren't gay.

[Neil]

It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.

How? I don't feel like I'm in a different faction.

Of course you do.  You self-identify as gay.

[Valmy]

True, but the idea that this was often, let alone usually, lifelong chastity is absurd.  For Middle Eastern and Carthaginian priestesses it was often the opposite- prostitution was a sacred practice reserved for priestesses. 

I agree.  The Romans had Vestal Virgins but they also had other priesthoods that were expected to marry and have children but they had tons of other bizarre restrictions.

The Priests of Jupiter could not:

Spend a single night outside of Rome
sleep out of his own bed for more than three nights in a row
mount a horse
Look at a horse (how that worked I have no idea)
Look at the army when it is outside Rome
He had to wed a virgin
He could only marry once
He could not divorce
He had to retire if his wife died
He was forbidden to take his clothes off outside
He was forbidden to wear jewelry unless it was plain and without stones
He could not take an oath (thus could not be a witness in court for example)

And so forth.  Bizarre stuff.

[Razgovory]

It further factionalizes society, as well as increasing individualism.

I hate individualism

It is quite annoying.  It's the cacophony of a thousand shouting idiots.