(June 23, 2013 at 2:20 pm)missluckie26 Wrote: Life experiences change your epigenome. A mouse for instance who is coddled as opposed to his cloned brother with an indifferent mom: starts off with picture perfect matching genomes that then diverge when the only change in state is experience. The mouse with an indifferent mom for instance is predisposed to heart disease risks and anxiety. Just to name a couple.
So if experiences change who we are genetically, then it is logical for me to reason that any affect I have on others of my species can affect the positive (or negative) progression of our species. Perhaps the experience of having someone die for you widens the potential of future generations.
I agree that that is valid. But I'm not ready to say much about epigenetics, haven't read too much on it. Let's grant that what you proposed is possible, dying for another may not necessarily give your species better future.
Because the person you die for may have only 10 years ahead of him, or he may not be able to contribute to society the way you can, he may not have people depending on him like you do. Btw I'm using criteria that we as a society use everyday to determine who gets organs and who has to wait. Not saying it's the best possible scenario, but i do think if you're arguing in terms of net benefit to society, the fact that not everyone contributes equally to society has to be addressed.
So to really increase the survival of your species, you must die for more than one person. Otherwise you just break even, or decrease the benefits to your society, or increase the benefits to your society. It's up to chance.
