Mike Waller

My starting point is that if what I say is true, the implications are so profound as to warrant intense investigation. If I were to put the human imperative on a T shirt, it would read "Compete, complement, deviate of die". I mean by this that our sense of worth is so tied up with our need to be well thought of that we are hag driven to outcompete our conspecifics, find some sort of supportive role to them, or do something successful that is sufficiently different to obviate direct comparisons. If we cannot achieve any of these, then the thanatic processes I have described kick in. I again stress that I do not think this a nice idea, but it accords pretty closely to the world as I apprehend it. I do not, of course, expect all interested parties to immediately fall down on their knees and declare in unison, "Hey, Mike you've got it!" I do, however, think that an idea that goes so far in explaining why we are so remorselessly gobbling up the planet and the relentless rise of depression up the World Heath Organisation's list of diseases that seriously impact on quality of life, deserves a great deal more investigative effort than I am able to supply. As to these being "old" concepts, in a broad sense you are right. I have traced references to the lethal effects of failure-related depression back to the ancient Greeks. Further, the use of the term "thanatos", from which thanatic derives, is closely associated with Freud and his notion of the death instinct. However Fred's life-long attempts to tie this back into basic biology failed. This for the very obvious reason that nobody could see how evolved processes which brought forward death could be adaptive in an evolutionary sense. This is where I do claim originality and it was that which got me into print. Frankly, I do not believe that resistance to the idea is grounded in any inherent weakness with it; rather the difficulties lie in a problem Richard Alexander identified years ago: "In all likelihood, no theory about anything extrinsic in the universe will ever hold as much intrigue, or encounter as much resistance, as a theory about ourselves. It may be the ultimate irony that the more such theory explains, the more difficult it will be to gain widespread acceptance". Comments please.

I very much take your point. Indeed I think it can be made even simpler. If we imagine two competing alleles, one which codes for "Hang-on-in at all costs" regardless of the reputational impact upon close kin, whilst the other carries an over-ride which hastens death once the reputational impact is likely to reduce the over-all replicatory prospects of the gene responsible, it seems to me that (a) the latter allele must out-replicated the former; and (b) this is not a trick that natural selection is likely to have missed.

I am taking it that what you mean by "many different species of organism" is not, say, the flora and fauna in the gut, but what is more generally known as the unconscious mind. If so, I think it a mistake to give much weight to what "you" (aka "the self" or "consciousness") does or not do. I have another published paper ("Organisation Theory and the Origions of Consciousness") in which I argue that consciousness is no more than a late evolutionary "bolt-on"essential to a big brained opportunistic problem solver. If this point is granted, it seems to me self-evident that whatever controlled the evolving organism before, did not suddenly say, in effect, "Consciousness you're so smart, I'll just hand it all over to you". Indeed there is plenty of evidence that in many instances poor old consciousness is a post-hoc rationaliser which comes up with explanations which satisfy it, but do not accord with the facts. Supermarket purchases are an often quoted example. Positioning within the store has a big impact on sales, yet purchasers very, very rarely explain their buys in terms of their being the things that first caught their eyes. Therefore my reading of what you are describing is that there is an inbuilt bias towards survival which has to be over-ridden by a very strong sense of worthlessness usually instilled by the responses of significant others. That is why poor parenting and/or peer group bullying can be so devastating. Put even more succinctly, it is why "to be put down" has both a literal and figurative meaning.

“There is another way of looking at this, if happiness andsuffering are linked to the impending increase and decrease of inclusive fitness(as we should expect them to be; Chapter 2), a foetus or baby that has detectedin itself some fatal physiological flaw is expected of itself to die at the earliestopportunity, and, in executing this decision, it should die relatively calmly andhappily, aware perhaps in a subconscious way that it is doing the ‘right thing’.This because for itself it has nothing to lose. By bringing the event forwards,it is helping its sibs and parents who are likely carriers of the same thanaticgene it has found occasion to express.” W.DHamilton: Narrow Roads of Gene Land (p.90) As the above quotation makes clear, the topic in which I aminterested goes to the very heart of what it is to be a human being. That iswhy I framed my first posting cautiously. However it has been suggested to methat I am very unlikely to elicit responses unless I am more forthcoming. Sohere goes. In suggesting that organisms are likely to carry thanaticgenes (i.e. genes coding for a contingent process of self-destruction),Hamilton focuses on resource allocation. The idea that inclusive fitness will favour any means serving to ensure thatresources available to a family group are allocated in a way most conducive tomaximising genetic throughput to the next generation. As I have long held the view that the potentially lethallinkage between clinical depression and its physiological sequelea is almostcertainly a mechanism favoured by natural selection, Hamilton’s conjecture hasbeen of considerable intellectual comfort to me. However, it has given me littledirect help. After all, severe depression is at least as likely to afflict an independentlyfunctioning adult as it is a child. Where, then, lies the familial advantage ifa member fully capable of reproduction is prematurely removed for the genepool? Surely, its only effect would be anet reduction in the passage of genes from one generation to the next. After years of effort, I came up with an answer which seemsto me robust to challenge. It turns on the central premise of both stockbreedingand life insurance: judge on the basis of family merits, not individual meritsalone. As every biologist knows, the reason lies in the difference between ourphenotypes and genotypes i.e. the genes we express are only part of our geneticendowment and, for better or for worse, those genes unexpressed in ourselvesare likely to appear in future generations. For species evolved to select mates this is ofmajor importance, albeit very little researched. And it carries with it avicious corollary: if a member of a kin group’s phenotype gives evidence that itskin may carry, unexpressed, many sub-optimal genes, a point may be reachedwhere its own potential gene throughput is outweighed by the reputationaldamage it inadvertently causes to the mating prospects of the other groupmembers. At this point, as with Hamilton’sembryo or neonate, its rapid elimination would work to the selective advantageof any gene which coded for such an outcome. Hence the lethal mechanism which has for so long interested me. Given that in 1999 the World Health Organisation placedmajor depressive disorders in fourth place in terms of diseases having the mostdetrimental effects on human well-being, what I call “stigma theory” seems tome to be worthy of investigation. How, then, do I get the ball rolling?

I am Mike Waller. I am 67 and live in England. My main interest is the interface between psychosomatic illness and "selfish-genery". I have just made my first post on the selfish gene thread looking for advice on progressing ideas I have been developing since the early 1970s.

For nearly forty years I have been working on a personal project to somehow reconcile two seemingly incompatible ideas. On the one hand there is now overwhelming evidence that we (and other species) carry within us biological "circuitry" that if triggered, induces low mood which brings in its train physiological effects that, particularly in the natural world, would lead to a rapid exit from the gene pool. On the other, there is the impelling logic implicit within selfish gene theory that natural selection will winnow out any behaviors which do not serve to ensure the repeated replication of the genes defining them. Put another way, major depressive episodes are known, for example, to suppress both the immune function and the libido, slow down movement (very bad if predators are around!), impede decision making, diminish interest in most activities, seriously reduce energy levels and induce feelings or worthlessness. As what appear to be the same phenomena can be induced in experimental animals, just how has a package so threatening to survival and reproduction managed to persist over evolutionary timescales? In 2010, the Journal of Social, Evolutionary and Cultural Psychology (2010, 4 (2): 94-114) published a paper of mine with the title "Family stigma, sexual selection and the evolutionary origins of severe depression's physiological consequences". In my view this paper contains by far the best answer to the above puzzle currently extant. Yet for all that, it has excited next to no interest. I should therefore be most grateful if those of you who can find the time to read it would advise me where I might find a receptive audience.