On 2003-07-01, Marko Paunovic uttered to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

>However, I don't think that there is any evidence, except in social
>insects, for this kind of specialization that you are suggesting.

The existence of two sexes appears an obvious counter-example. There are
also some reasons to expect that the principle might work at a
finer-grained level. I don't have a reference at hand, but I've once read
a highly interesting sociobiology account of why homosexuality might be
one such specialisation (that's where the childcare idea came from). I've
also heard some speculation about the possibility of "warrior genes" (i.e.
genes which cause aggression bordering on self-sacrifice). The same goes
for novelty seeking ("troubled youth"), which I understand has been
extensively studied. From the economic standpoint the ratio between
novelty seekers and steady people determines the community's collective
risk profile.

So I wouldn't dismiss the possibility of genetic occupations (a wonderful
term, BTW) just yet. Otherwise we're in vigorous agreement.
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

Reply via email to