Evolution on love?

[fellowshipseeker]

A question - according to evolution, where did love come from?

​

 

[gluadys]

A question - according to evolution, where did love come from?

​

Just my own speculations here so take it fwiw.

There are two aspects relative to evolution (specifically natural selection) which would seem to be a basis for the later development of what we call love.

One is that more of one's offspring are likely to survive if parents care for them. This allows for successful survival of a species which produces fewer than 10 offspring per season (or even per lifetime) as compared with the necessity of producing hundreds of eggs or thousands of seeds or spores among species where the juveniles are not protected by their parents.

But parental care depends on some sort of bonding between parent and child and a willingness of the parent to risk its own life to preserve the life of its offspring.

Much the same applies to kin selection--the willingness of organisms to risk themselves in the defence of siblings and close family members.

Both of these are fundamental to establishing and maintaining social groups.

However, there is also an advantage in not mating with very close kin. So in many species there is also a strong selective pressure toward exogamy, mating outside the immediate family circle. (Yet very often, preferably, within one's own social group.) So there is also a drive to bond with a mate; and that bond can vary from a single coupling to a life-long bond, especially where both parents cooperate in the care of the young.

I wouldn't say either of these drives, alone or together, constitutes love, but they may be evolutionary precursors to love.

 

[Chesterton]

One is that more of one's offspring are likely to survive if parents care for them. This allows for successful survival of a species which produces fewer than 10 offspring per season (or even per lifetime) as compared with the necessity of producing hundreds of eggs or thousands of seeds or spores among species where the juveniles are not protected by their parents.

But parental care depends on some sort of bonding between parent and child and a willingness of the parent to risk its own life to preserve the life of its offspring.

I have a problem with that. If love is produced by some mysterious desire for survival of a species, then it should not be limited to parent-offspring relationship, or even to a species. It should extend to all living things: neighbors, strangers, other species, no?

If that's what love is, I should love a complete stranger as much as I love my own child.

 

[gluadys]

I have a problem with that. If love is produced by some mysterious desire for survival of a species, then it should not be limited to parent-offspring relationship, or even to a species. It should extend to all living things: neighbors, strangers, other species, no?

If that's what love is, I should love a complete stranger as much as I love my own child.

No evolution is produced by a desire for survival of a species. No evolution is produced by any desire whatsoever. Desire is not a force that produces evolution.


Evolution does not happen because it is desired or willed, but because certain traits (including behavioral traits) are more effective than others in ensuring the survival of offspring to the point that they too can reproduce.

Parent-child bonding and kin selection are behaviours which are conducive to successful reproduction of the genes of those who behave in this way (though the genes are in the children or kin than in oneself).

I did not claim that either of these, alone or together, IS love (I would agree they are not), but possible evolutionary precursors to love. And I am sure you would agree that although an equal love for all children is ideal, most of us in practice experience a much greater degree of love for our own children than for others. That doesn't make the love we have for our children less real.

We can also see that love is not limited to close biological kin since parents bond as well with adopted children as with biological children (and this occurs in non-human animals as well).

Let me also add a survival strategy among animals that does encompass one's whole community: giving warning signals which draw attention to the individual who sounds the warning. It seems counter-intuitive to the supposed selfishness of evolution that an individual would put his or her own life in danger to warn the community of the approach of a predator. But if more of a community survives because of this behaviour than would be the case without a warning, that behaviour is more likely to be reproduced in the community.

There are also some instances among non-human animals of care extending to other species. This is most frequently seen in domestic pets who bond to their human companions and to animals of other species in the household. But there are also several pretty-well documented cases of wild dolphins acting to save humans in distress.

Again, not necessarily what we would call love, but intimations of what could become love, even universal love for all, regardless of kinship, regardless even of species.

 

[Gottservant]

this is a great question

it necessarily requires mystery as part of the answer

for that reason I doubt you will find answers most people give, satisfactory

 

[seeingeyes]

Are you asking in terms of godless evolution or Godful evolution?

Love for family/friends/allies can certainly benefit a social species.

Love for enemies is a higher level of morality. A more complex species, if you will.

 

[[serious]]

A question - according to evolution, where did love come from?

​

It's complicated biochemically:
Biological basis of love - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As far as the wider view, pack formation can (in some situations) increase the reproductive success of that population. As such, a neurochemical reward function (in this case provided by love) to the proximity of your group would increase relative fitness. We also gain a reproductive advantage from love due to the care provided to our offspring.

 

[Chesterton]

Parent-child bonding and kin selection are behaviours which are conducive to successful reproduction of the genes of those who behave in this way (though the genes are in the children or kin than in oneself).

Animal-animal bonding and non-kin selection would be even more conducive to successful reproduction of all genes.

 

[gluadys]

Animal-animal bonding and non-kin selection would be even more conducive to successful reproduction of all genes.

Bonding is one thing, reproduction, another. A gosling may imprint on a human and treat it as a parent or sibling, but cannot mate with it. To assure reproduction of the genes one possesses one must protect others who have the same genes. And those most likely to have the same genes are those most closely related to oneself.

We should also distinguish here between genes and alleles. With the exception of albinos all humans possess the same genes for producing pigments which colour eyes, hair and skin. But variations in the DNA sequencing which codes for these genes generates variations in colouring. The same applies to all other genes. Each gene comes in different varieties called alleles.

Since natural selection is a selection of which allelic version of a gene will occur most frequently in future generations of a population, kin-selection rather than generalized selection is more conducive to promoting the survival of one's own alleles.

 

[Chesterton]

This seems to be the way it should be - either no love, or universal love.

One dying boy is just as good as another. Or just as bad.
-----

Harvey!

He's not Harvey, Ma, he's Yossarian.

What difference does it make? He's dying.


Catch 22 - His name is Yossarian, Ma. - YouTube