[pfdietz]

> It’s because ultimately the species survives, not the individuals.

No, this is wrong. "Survival of the species" isn't a basis for selection. It will not lead to a gene becoming more prevalent in a population of interbreeding individuals.

Bees sacrifice themselves because they share genes with the queen; genes that are involved in this sacrifice increase their relative abundance in the bee gene pool by increasing the fitness of the superorganism that is the colony.

[Salgat]

That's not entirely true. For example, being gay is hypothesized to give an evolutionary advantage because you can provide care for your sibling's children, who share their dna with you. Same goes for early menopause. That can extend to small villages where individuals may give up their own resources for a greater survival chance of their kin within the collective.

[asingnh]

Are homosexuality and early menopause genetic conditions?

[jahewson]

Everything that makes us human is constrained by the possibilities offered by our genes. Epigenetics, development, and environment are downstream of that. It is our genes that allow for sexual reproduction in the first place and why we’re attracted to other humans and not, say, trees.

[SoftTalker]

Seems quite likely to me.

[alt227]

Pre 1800, the average life expectancy was aged between 20-40 [1]. I think the menopause is something that was experienced by extremely few people until after then.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

[olddustytrail]

Average life expectancy is misleading. You want perhaps median life expectancy after the age of 20.

[meindnoch]

>"Survival of the species" isn't a basis for selection. It will not lead to a gene becoming more prevalent in a population of interbreeding individuals.

Well, "species" is but a loosely defined set of genes.

[pfdietz]

And group selection cannot increase the frequency of a gene in that collection.