Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Side effect of forming relationships.

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Maybe wild pigs don’t have the grieve gen/ and associated grieve chemicals that cause grieve emotion from external feedback?

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Maybe wild pigs don’t have the grieve gen/ and associated grieve chemicals that cause grieve emotion from external feedback?

Maybe wild pigs don’t have the grieve gene and associated grieve chemicals that cause grieve emotion from external feedback?

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Probably an unavoidable flip side to the things that make us social and bind in social ways. And I wouldn’t say it is negative from a Darwinian perspective because that implies not breeding.

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Obviously it doesn’t, at least for the animals that do it.

Or at least its negative survival value is less than the survival value of not grieving.

Presumably it is good for the survival of the genes in individuals other than the one doing the grieving.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Or at least its negative survival value is less than the negative survival value of not grieving.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Obviously it doesn’t, at least for the animals that do it.

Or at least its negative survival value is less than the survival value of not grieving.

Presumably it is good for the survival of the genes in individuals other than the one doing the grieving.

I think genes pass on emotions

Perhaps grief is separate to biological evolution and something caring creatures feel when someone/thing dies.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Obviously it doesn’t, at least for the animals that do it.

Or at least its negative survival value is less than the survival value of not grieving.

Presumably it is good for the survival of the genes in individuals other than the one doing the grieving.

I think genes pass on emotions

I doubt there is any doubt about that, since they are not an acquired characteristic.

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is separate to biological evolution and something caring creatures feel when someone/thing dies.

Why would that make it separate to evolution?

Nothing that has any effect on survival rates is separate to evolution.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is separate to biological evolution and something caring creatures feel when someone/thing dies.

Why would that make it separate to evolution?

Nothing that has any effect on survival rates is separate to evolution.

You could check to see what the reproduction or survival rate is of people with stunted emotional development.

Perhaps grief is beneficial for parents so if a baby dies they are more careful with the others and it extended form there but is of no real benefit for survival beyond the initial reason.

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

you have to think about it as a forward prophylactic against loss, of nurturement, and generalize the mechanisms to others less related and perhaps even unrelated.

a child is a substantial investment, and it’s well known the horror of just imagining a loss.

horror is is a suspension of normal, normal failed, and humans have substantial mind tools, including a very long memory, of the latter it’s not entirely your friend.

animals may grieve because something didn’t return (or wake), it’s a frustrated looking or expectation whatever would return or show signs of life.

normal helping behavior and expectations (related hope) don’t bring whatever home or back to life.

the mind (or brain if you like, of other animals) is invested, the lost other or others exist (as a representation) in neural structures, a mental map of sorts including others, involving others, so a great change to the living/dead status of whatever else is a significant change.

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is beneficial for parents so if a baby dies they are more careful with the others and it extended form there but is of no real benefit for survival beyond the initial reason.

??

That sounds like a very real benefit to survival to me.

transition said:

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

you have to think about it as a forward prophylactic against loss, of nurturement, and generalize the mechanisms to others less related and perhaps even unrelated.

a child is a substantial investment, and it’s well known the horror of just imagining a loss.

horror is is a suspension of normal, normal failed, and humans have substantial mind tools, including a very long memory, of the latter it’s not entirely your friend.

animals may grieve because something didn’t return (or wake), it’s a frustrated looking or expectation whatever would return or show signs of life.

normal helping behavior and expectations (related hope) don’t bring whatever home or back to life.

the mind (or brain if you like, of other animals) is invested, the lost other or others exist (as a representation) in neural structures, a mental map of sorts including others, involving others, so a great change to the living/dead status of whatever else is a significant change.

your recombined DNA has your DNA, it’s your vehicle into the future

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is beneficial for parents so if a baby dies they are more careful with the others and it extended form there but is of no real benefit for survival beyond the initial reason.

??

That sounds like a very real benefit to survival to me.

Yes but couldn’t emotions exist for no real benefit to survival but say to make life more interesting

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is beneficial for parents so if a baby dies they are more careful with the others and it extended form there but is of no real benefit for survival beyond the initial reason.

I think a chemical bond happens with relationships, it involves an optical, geometry, chemical bond binding an external extension with a partner.

So rather than one person experiences their own emotions, one person can sense the emotions of the other through the optical, geometry chemical bond.

This is why grief is felt.

This why emotional violence is bad.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is beneficial for parents so if a baby dies they are more careful with the others and it extended form there but is of no real benefit for survival beyond the initial reason.

??

That sounds like a very real benefit to survival to me.

Good grief.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is beneficial for parents so if a baby dies they are more careful with the others and it extended form there but is of no real benefit for survival beyond the initial reason.

??

That sounds like a very real benefit to survival to me.

Yes but couldn’t emotions exist for no real benefit to survival but say to make life more interesting

How would these emotion genes get selected if they had no benefit to survival?

think of grief as a mental state people avoid as much as possible, as very effective aversion, reducing the frequency of it’s occurrence, inclining people (and other animals) toward behaviors that reduce its likelihood and frequency.

there aren’t too many ways to do it, really.

it lends to positive mechanisms of group homeostasis (benefiting individuals), a lot of the time.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

??

That sounds like a very real benefit to survival to me.

Yes but couldn’t emotions exist for no real benefit to survival but say to make life more interesting

How would these emotion genes get selected if they had no benefit to survival?

Same way males end up with persistent non survival related nipples I suppose…

transition said:

think of grief as a mental state people avoid as much as possible, as very effective aversion, reducing the frequency of it’s occurrence, inclining people (and other animals) toward behaviors that reduce its likelihood and frequency.

there aren’t too many ways to do it, really.

it lends to positive mechanisms of group homeostasis (benefiting individuals), a lot of the time.

+1

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Yes but couldn’t emotions exist for no real benefit to survival but say to make life more interesting

How would these emotion genes get selected if they had no benefit to survival?

Same way males end up with persistent non survival related nipples I suppose…

But nipples in 50% of the species have great survival value, and their negative survival value in the other half is near zero.

The Rev Dodgson said:

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How would these emotion genes get selected if they had no benefit to survival?

Same way males end up with persistent non survival related nipples I suppose…

But nipples in 50% of the species have great survival value, and their negative survival value in the other half is near zero.

whatevs, genes don’t need a survival benefit to persist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

??

That sounds like a very real benefit to survival to me.

Yes but couldn’t emotions exist for no real benefit to survival but say to make life more interesting

How would these emotion genes get selected if they had no benefit to survival?

Passed on regardless

poikilotherm said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

poikilotherm said:

Same way males end up with persistent non survival related nipples I suppose…

But nipples in 50% of the species have great survival value, and their negative survival value in the other half is near zero.

whatevs, genes don’t need a survival benefit to persist.

They do if they would otherwise be a disbenefit.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Yes but couldn’t emotions exist for no real benefit to survival but say to make life more interesting

How would these emotion genes get selected if they had no benefit to survival?

Passed on regardless

Being passed on regardless is not being selected, and only happens if the genes have no adverse effect.

Emotions often have great negative effect for the individual, so they must have a greater beneficial effect for the rest of the group.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Why do people and animals grieve?

Grief has entirely negative survival value from a Darwinian perspective.

Elephants and apes have been observed to grieve. According to one anecdote, wild pigs don’t.

Obviously it doesn’t, at least for the animals that do it.

Or at least its negative survival value is less than the survival value of not grieving.

Presumably it is good for the survival of the genes in individuals other than the one doing the grieving.

I think genes pass on emotions

oxytocin levels increase or decrease depending upon environmental influences in humans. the level then influences the capacity to bond and form life long emotional connections to other humans. Elephants also benefit from bonding in a group that multi-generationally raises their calves and are pack animals as are dogs , humans and a lot of higher order mammals.

We don’t know that animals grieve but we observe behavioral pattern changes that coincide with deaths and separations from their pack of human and animal friends.

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Obviously it doesn’t, at least for the animals that do it.

Or at least its negative survival value is less than the survival value of not grieving.

Presumably it is good for the survival of the genes in individuals other than the one doing the grieving.

I think genes pass on emotions

oxytocin levels increase or decrease depending upon environmental influences in humans. the level then influences the capacity to bond and form life long emotional connections to other humans. Elephants also benefit from bonding in a group that multi-generationally raises their calves and are pack animals as are dogs , humans and a lot of higher order mammals.

We don’t know that animals grieve but we observe behavioral pattern changes that coincide with deaths and separations from their pack of human and animal friends.

Yeah, it’s all brain chemicals type of stuff.

party_pants said:

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think genes pass on emotions

oxytocin levels increase or decrease depending upon environmental influences in humans. the level then influences the capacity to bond and form life long emotional connections to other humans. Elephants also benefit from bonding in a group that multi-generationally raises their calves and are pack animals as are dogs , humans and a lot of higher order mammals.

We don’t know that animals grieve but we observe behavioral pattern changes that coincide with deaths and separations from their pack of human and animal friends.

Yeah, it’s all brain chemicals type of stuff.

being born with the basics is genetic and the scale and ratio of the serotonin to dopamine and the short fuse or long fuse genes are passed down the genetic tree and then altered for the next generation depending on the environmental experiences of the individual making (aggressive or balanced humans that can bond, grieve and care )

at a reasonable guess to care means you attempt to safe guard the life and lives of your loved ones and that will be an evolutionary advantage to think that way.

Cymek said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

Perhaps grief is separate to biological evolution and something caring creatures feel when someone/thing dies.

Why would that make it separate to evolution?

Nothing that has any effect on survival rates is separate to evolution.

You could check to see what the reproduction or survival rate is of people with stunted emotional development.

That’s a good point. I have met a few.

party_pants said:

monkey skipper said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I think genes pass on emotions

oxytocin levels increase or decrease depending upon environmental influences in humans. the level then influences the capacity to bond and form life long emotional connections to other humans. Elephants also benefit from bonding in a group that multi-generationally raises their calves and are pack animals as are dogs , humans and a lot of higher order mammals.

We don’t know that animals grieve but we observe behavioral pattern changes that coincide with deaths and separations from their pack of human and animal friends.

Yeah, it’s all brain chemicals type of stuff.

Which leads to the follow-on of which chemicals are involved in the grieving process.

Grieving is really weird. “The 5 stages of grief and loss are: 1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; 5. Acceptance.” Five different sets of brain chemicals?

Emotions are common with social animals that build a stronger bond within the group. Grief is just another emotion doing the same thing.

PermeateFree said:

Emotions are common with social animals that build a stronger bond within the group. Grief is just another emotion doing the same thing.

Quite. A galah for example will pine and possibly die if the person or family the bird associates with, go away for holidays and leave the bird with a stranger.

>Grieving is really weird. “The 5 stages of grief and loss are: 1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; 5. Acceptance.” Five different sets of brain chemicals?

I wouldn’t take too much notice of that bullshit, it’s largely a cultural artifact.

the state is only a recent thing, bodies of deceased fairly much become property of the state at the moment of death, subject to customs of disposal written into law, the cause of death is of interest to the state, nearly everything regards delivery of deceased is outsourced, and even perfectly ordinary ageing preceding death is substantially outsourced (partitioned, compartmentalized, the territory of specialists, which includes medicalizers and pathologizers).

so, few these days actually dig a hole to bury anyone, their own (so to speak), to the extent the reason for burial or cremation is hardly recognized, it being that corpses very quickly rot and stink.

so the moment someone dies around you you’re not in your own territory (so to speak, but it’s real).

transition said:

>Grieving is really weird. “The 5 stages of grief and loss are: 1. Denial and isolation; 2. Anger; 3. Bargaining; 4. Depression; 5. Acceptance.” Five different sets of brain chemicals?

I wouldn’t take too much notice of that bullshit, it’s largely a cultural artifact.

the state is only a recent thing, bodies of deceased fairly much become property of the state at the moment of death, subject to customs of disposal written into law, the cause of death is of interest to the state, nearly everything regards delivery of deceased is outsourced, and even perfectly ordinary ageing preceding death is substantially outsourced (partitioned, compartmentalized, the territory of specialists, which includes medicalizers and pathologizers).

so, few these days actually dig a hole to bury anyone, their own (so to speak), to the extent the reason for burial or cremation is hardly recognized, it being that corpses very quickly rot and stink.

so the moment someone dies around you you’re not in your own territory (so to speak, but it’s real).

you could say, the truth (practicalities, realities of) are refrigerated.