Genetic Inheritance of Crusaders

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I would need to look them up, but there have been studies which show that a positive attitude to life results in a longer and happier life, eg http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4783836.stm

I would agree that a positive attitude to life results in a longer and happier life. I disagree that that is the typical result of being religious. I also think one must consider the consequences for others. For example, a televangelist with a positive attitude to life may live longer, but all the people who give their money to him might not.

I agree that is is not considered a genetic expression (apart from The God Gene?) however the approach ie the mental approach/willingness to accept such beliefs may predispose people, therefore making it a more complex issue. And yes HIV is successful for its survival, not benefiting the host.
My point exactly. So the success of religion, is not a direct indication that it benefits the host (believer).

And reproduction in poorer areas is directly linked to reproductive success for them; you must remember that when the parents are richer they will invest more in each child in both monetary and personal terms, making their strategy (however subconsciously) more successful for them.
Successful in monetary terms but not reproductive ones. It is a fact that populations in poorer areas are growing. I recently saw an article saying that the number of Muslims has just overtaken the number of Roman Catholics. Apparently this is because on average Muslims live in poorer parts of the world and have more children.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I would agree that a positive attitude to life results in a longer and happier life. I disagree that that is the typical result of being religious. I also think one must consider the consequences for others. For example, a televangelist with a positive attitude to life may live longer, but all the people who give their money to him might not.

[b]I agre ...[text shortened]... this is because on average Muslims live in poorer parts of the world and have more children.[/b]

I suppose as long as those who donate felt better about themselves then the point is mute; is there really such as thing as truly altruistic giving (leaving aside supernatural beings for the moment). The televangelist might actually feel bad about conning people and thereby shorten their life...

On your second point I would feel that, if the belief can be considered seperate to the holdee (which I am increasingly uncomfortable with), there is a mutual benefit otherwise the belief would die out; think flu that is too successful and lethal, and it will get stopped quickly.

You are right in that in general, the poorer the society the more likely they are to have more children; clearly since this is widespread it is an established evolutionary mechanism. My point simply relates to the differentials between those who believe and those who do not... I feel that in general most religions spread the 'go forth and multiply' message, after all, it is not in the interests of the belief to do otherwise. ('Top yourself' in unlikely to become successful as a concept)

Originally posted by snowinscotland
On your second point I would feel that, if the belief can be considered seperate to the holdee (which I am increasingly uncomfortable with), there is a mutual benefit otherwise the belief would die out; think flu that is too successful and lethal, and it will get stopped quickly.

So is the flu beneficial? Thats news to me.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So is the flu beneficial? Thats news to me.

It may be, as you will have some immunity from both the one you caught and other closely associated ones; that is a benefit over others who did not get the flu.

What I find most interesting about the process is how slim the margins are in order to confer a long term advantage; again the Crusaders have left a legacy measurable some 800 odd years later:- what was it about those (who survived!) that made that difference? I see elements of research that point to the state of mind of an individual being increasingly recognised as important to their health, relationships etc etc, what else is a faith but a stability in that mindset that may help to confer such a benefit?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
What I find most interesting about the process is how slim the margins are in order to confer a long term advantage; again the Crusaders have left a legacy measurable some 800 odd years later:- what was it about those (who survived!) that made that difference? I see elements of research that point to the state of mind of an individual being increasing ...[text shortened]... tc, what else is a faith but a stability in that mindset that may help to confer such a benefit?

There were probably a lot of factors that were involved in whether or not a crusader left a legacy. My guesses include:
1. Promiscuity.
2. A desire to leave their homeland (the article said many crusaders settled in the middle east).
3. Social acceptance of other races / cultures (those that married women from the middle east).
4. Survival of the crusades (many possible reasons from cowardice to exceptional skill at fighting etc).

So far almost all of the above reasons imply that those who had decedents might have been the less religious ones.
You appear to be assuming that the crusaders were more religious than the other people in their homelands - that may not be true at all.

You are also not looking at all the other conquests throughout history that had nothing to do with religion and yet resulted in similar amounts of 'sowing of the seed'. And lets not forget outright replacement such as happened in the Americas and Australia. One doesn't need to do genetic studies to know that those 'crusaders' left some genes behind 🙂

Originally posted by snowinscotland
It may be, as you will have some immunity from both the one you caught and other closely associated ones; that is a benefit over others who did not get the flu.

What I find most interesting about the process is how slim the margins are in order to confer a long term advantage; again the Crusaders have left a legacy measurable some 800 odd years lat ...[text shortened]... tc, what else is a faith but a stability in that mindset that may help to confer such a benefit?

The flu is not beneficial simply because it confers resistance to the flu. Why would you want resistance if the flu is beneficial? It's a circular argument based on the fact that the flu is not beneficial. It goes like this: the flu is a bad thing, so the flu is a good thing because it confers resistance to the flu. What?!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The flu is not beneficial simply because it confers resistance to the flu. Why would you want resistance if the flu is beneficial? It's a circular argument based on the fact that the flu is not beneficial. It goes like this: the flu is a bad thing, so the flu is a good thing because it confers resistance to the flu. What?!

But then again, being a Buddhist might protect one against becoming a Christian 🙂

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The flu is not beneficial simply because it confers resistance to the flu. Why would you want resistance if the flu is beneficial? It's a circular argument based on the fact that the flu is not beneficial. It goes like this: the flu is a bad thing, so the flu is a good thing because it confers resistance to the flu. What?!

I don't quite see it like that.

We live in a world where there are many types of virus. If we have no immune system, we fail pretty quickly. Given that this is the case, then some immunity (derived from catching milder forms of viruses) is a benefit. I'm not sure how this is a circular argument, unless you start from a position where there are no infectious agents.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There were probably a lot of factors that were involved in whether or not a crusader left a legacy. My guesses include:
1. Promiscuity.
2. A desire to leave their homeland (the article said many crusaders settled in the middle east).
3. Social acceptance of other races / cultures (those that married women from the middle east).
4. Survival of the cru ...[text shortened]... doesn't need to do genetic studies to know that those 'crusaders' left some genes behind 🙂

Good point. So how do you explain the survival of such beliefs?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I don't quite see it like that.

We live in a world where there are many types of virus. If we have no immune system, we fail pretty quickly. Given that this is the case, then some immunity (derived from catching milder forms of viruses) is a benefit. I'm not sure how this is a circular argument, unless you start from a position where there are no infectious agents.

Aquired immunity almost never works like that as far as I know (vaccinia/cowpox/smallpox being a major exception which led to smallpox's eradication). What diseases does having an acquired immunity to one strain of influenza protect you from? B-cells are quite specific in what they target. In addition it takes some bodily resources to manufacture them.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Good point. So how do you explain the survival of such beliefs?

I have many ideas about how and why various beliefs have survived. Direct benefit to the believers health is not a major one of them. I would however include less direct benefit such as societal pressures. A person in a society of believers is more likely to survive and reproduce if he himself is a believer. In fact less tolerant religions encourage this more and as a result are less likely to die out in a society than more tolerant ones.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have many ideas about how and why various beliefs have survived. Direct benefit to the believers health is not a major one of them. I would however include less direct benefit such as societal pressures. A person in a society of believers is more likely to survive and reproduce if he himself is a believer. In fact less tolerant religions encourage this more and as a result are less likely to die out in a society than more tolerant ones.

That would explain the particular vemon Islam has about those who leave. And excommunication ;- that must have been murder (perhaps literally, catharism?) in the middle ages.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Aquired immunity almost never works like that as far as I know (vaccinia/cowpox/smallpox being a major exception which led to smallpox's eradication). What diseases does having an acquired immunity to one strain of influenza protect you from? B-cells are quite specific in what they target. In addition it takes some bodily resources to manufacture them.

Perhaps you are referring to original antigenic sin. It is true that there may be a reduced or even detrimental effect depending on the changes in the infective agent. Good point.

I don't think that having a better system of fighting infection is a negative benefit, tho', although that is a different line of thought.

(edit: particularly apt, 'original sin'😉

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Perhaps you are referring to original antigenic sin. It is true that there may be a reduced or even detrimental effect depending on the changes in the infective agent. Good point.

I don't think that having a better system of fighting infection is a negative benefit, tho', although that is a different line of thought.

(edit: particularly apt, 'original sin'😉

Did you read my post!? Acquired immunity to the flu does not protect against other diseases! It simply diverts bodily resources into defending against that strain of the flu.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Did you read my post!? Acquired immunity to the flu does not protect against other diseases! It simply diverts bodily resources into defending against that strain of the flu.

I suggest you look up 'original antigenic sin'.