http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notro ... -go-first/


It's interesting that it almost looks as if these crickets are displaying moral behaviour. Seems to me to be good evidence that evolution provides behavious that we think of as moral. Surely crickets don't have their own god passing down commandments and the like.

I salute them, I'm cricketus!

Even after Ed Yong blogging about this story, this video only had 2 views before I watched it.

Rome Existed wrote:http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/10/06/%E2%80%98chivalrous%E2%80%99-crickets-dying-to-let-females-go-first/


It's interesting that it almost looks as if these crickets are displaying moral behaviour. Seems to me to be good evidence that evolution provides behavious that we think of as moral. Surely crickets don't have their own god passing down commandments and the like.

They’ve just been duped: Unaware that gender-specific stereotypical behaviors derive from mere social constructions, the hapless males feel it their preordained duty—a duty artfully instilled in their psyche by the evil machinations of the females—to act in a suicidal manner when the outcome of such behavior is likely to save the life of their partner.

Conversely, an argument could be made that such apparently disinterested chivalry is merely a clever subterfuge on the part of the male crickets, who thus attempt to secure a position of power over the females through the reinforcement of misogynistic misconceptions that portray the males alone as inherently strong and heroic.

At 4:36 in the video the commentator states "this increases a males risk of being killed by a predator of up to four times, for females that risk is decreased for up to six times but males do not die in an altruistic way, females very often bury eggs whilst sharing a burrow with a male buy guarding them the males increase the number of matings they get and that makes them to increase the paternity over the progeny of their partners ...". How is this not altruistic behaviour? Increasing the chance that ones mate and therefore their progeny survives by up to 6 times is the definition of altruism in the view of ones self but only not in the view of the selfish genes, surely?

CdeLosada - you have me confused - firstly acting in a suicidal manner is likely to save the life of their progeny, surely this is the driving factor?

CdeLosada wrote:evil machinations of the females

surely you jest?

CdeLosada wrote:a clever subterfuge on the part of the male crickets

again surely you jest?

Rome Existed wrote:Surely crickets don't have their own god passing down commandments and the like

Nope, just passing down their genes.

Edit: of ones self but only not in the view of the selfish genes

halucigenia wrote:At 4:36 in the video the commentator states "this increases a males risk of being killed by a predator of up to four times, for females that risk is decreased for up to six times but males do not die in an altruistic way, females very often bury eggs whilst sharing a burrow with a male buy guarding them the males increase the number of matings they get and that makes them to increase the paternity over the progeny of their partners ...". How is this not altruistic behaviour? Increasing the chance that ones mate and therefore their progeny survives by up to 6 times is the definition of altruism in the view of ones selfish genes surely?

CdeLosada - you have me confused - firstly acting in a suicidal manner is likely to save the life of their progeny, surely this is the driving factor?

CdeLosada wrote:evil machinations of the females

surely you jest?

CdeLosada wrote:a clever subterfuge on the part of the male crickets

again surely you jest?

Rome Existed wrote:Surely crickets don't have their own god passing down commandments and the like

Nope, just passing down their genes.

Sorry halucigenia, the whole thing was in jest. It was meant as a parody of extreme views according to which, at least as far as humans are concerned, every behavioral difference between the sexes is the result of culture, genes having little or nothing to do with it.

CdeLosada wrote:Sorry halucigenia, the whole thing was in jest. It was meant as a parody of extreme views according to which, at least as far as humans are concerned, every behavioral difference between the sexes is the result of culture, genes having little or nothing to do with it.

I thought so how about using smilies.

halucigenia wrote:

CdeLosada wrote:Sorry halucigenia, the whole thing was in jest. It was meant as a parody of extreme views according to which, at least as far as humans are concerned, every behavioral difference between the sexes is the result of culture, genes having little or nothing to do with it.

I thought so how about using smilies.

I'll consider it next time.

CdeLosada wrote:
Sorry halucigenia, the whole thing was in jest. It was meant as a parody of extreme views according to which, at least as far as humans are concerned, every behavioral difference between the sexes is the result of culture, genes having little or nothing to do with it.

Actually, i thought they were great - I laughed!