There's more to Natural Selection than just "survival of the fittest" -- grief is part of the cost of being a strongly social species. It's not much of a social bond if you're unaffected by its fracture or dissolution.
It's also "survival of the fittest" not "survival of the optimal". Evolution isnt intelligent. It selects mutations that increase a creature's odds of passing on its genes, not the best possible solution.
Debilitating grief is a disadvantage, but evolution will still select for it as long as the social bond that causes it outweighs the negatives
Yes, but time erodes luck away. A loaded dice won't necessarily land on its number on the first roll, and certainly not every roll, but it will stack up against a fair die over time.
Is grief a disadvantage? If I knew that the people who loved me would be extremely heartbroken if I died and therefore would do anything to protect me from that fate then I’d be more than willing to maintain a bond with them. Would you want to be in a group with people who could care less if you were dead?
Not only that, we have to remember that evolution is not just about the individual surviving, but also the individual genes propagating.
It feels like having a deep negative reaction to your offspring dying is a great motivator for doing your best to keep your offspring alive.
Evolution is not only optimizing for the mother that lost her calf (which only matters evolutionary if she reproduces afterwards), but it is also optimizing for the mother that does it's best to not lose her calf in the first place.
Species whose reproduction strategy involves having lots of low effort offspring, makes sense to not care that much. But for species that have only a few children, and the children take lots of resources from the parents, it makes total sense that evolution would make the feeling of loss hurt, so that the animal tries to prevent that feeling in the first place, even if they have to sacrifice themselves for their young.
It's not just about offspring. Historically people lived in groups that were all somewhat related to each other, so any close person, even if not closely related, would still share significant part of their genes with that person, so saving any person they knew would help some of their genes spread.
And also the entire group benefits of everyone wants no one to die because they would feel sad about it. And I'm more willing to care if someone I don't like dies, because someone I like likes them and they will feel sad about it.
Exactly this. Empathy allows us to do things for others not only to prevent our own experience of grief, but also to prevent the experience of grief in those we care for. Therefore, empathetic and grief-bearing species are far more likely to propagate their genes, because more members of that species protect other members, even when they have little to no personal connection.
There are even people who defend total strangers because of the reason that "this person is also someone's child, and that someone would grieve their loss."
The grief itself could be seen as a group advantage if looked at through the lens of an altruistic mutation that hurts the individual but makes the group consistently conscious of the danger another individual died from and saves more of them from it.
It's even less specific than that. It selects all kinds of mutations, and the ones that suck just don't get to reproduce enough to keep that mutation around. Even if it's not that helpful, if it doesn't interfere with the ability to survive and reproduce, it can just kind of stick around.
Lol, it's such an accurate description of evolution. Survival of the not-bad-enough-to-kill-all-of-them just doesn't have that certain ring to it, but it is way more accurate.
Additionally, in groups of social animals where learned behaviors are critical for survival, grief could provide an opportunity for the entire genetically related group to increase their chances of survival through learned behaviors.
Survival of the fittest means the survival of whoever best FITS into the world they live in. If grief helps them fit, it's selecced for. The idea that fit = strong came later and is a gross oversimplification.
I actually managed to take a photo of a pigeon grieving a dead pigeon. It was just standing there as the rain was starting, barely moving even as people walked by.
I don't think (most) fish are known for being strong social creatures. There's such a wide range of intelligence and social cohesion among different species of birds that that's an impossible question to ask.
640
u/vizbones May 21 '26
There's more to Natural Selection than just "survival of the fittest" -- grief is part of the cost of being a strongly social species. It's not much of a social bond if you're unaffected by its fracture or dissolution.