The harm is just misunderstanding. Attributing a interest in dying "for the good of the species" shows a breakdown in usefulness of the metaphor, as attributes not associated with the process of evolution are being applied to it because of the anthropomorphization.
Species is a nebulous conflation of genetics, behavior and habitat. Some like to say that ability to bear fertile offspring is the limit to determine speciation. This definition allows ignoring the mule offspring of horses and donkeys, strengthening the position that the latter are different species, but fails on the liger, which can be fertile with few people claiming tigers and lions to be of the same species. So breeding is insufficient to determine species.
Species is then more a measure of the human perception of things being different than any more specific quality.
The idea that a species could somehow convince its constituent individuals to act for the benefit of the species isn't useful. Individual members of the species will each act with self-interest in the pursuit of resources, mates and territory. Altruistic behaviors will propagate by out-competing "cheating" behaviors, and most often multiple simultaneous behavior strategies will exist within a population. Even within an individual, which might choose different actions in different situations.
If there was more benefit to living longer in the species, cheaters would certainly exploit it in the face of "dying for the good of the species". However, if the detriments of living longer cause the individual to be unable to compete with shorter living individuals, the species will continue to tend to a shorter lifespan.
Suggesting that the creatures will conspire to die and make room for their offspring suggests that the anthropomorphized idea of species is causing faulty assumptions about the nature of the subject to be held, and that the metaphor should be discarded as detrimental to understanding.
> Suggesting that the creatures will conspire to die and make room for their offspring suggests that the anthropomorphized idea of species is causing faulty assumptions about the nature of the subject to be held, and that the metaphor should be discarded as detrimental to understanding.
I wasn't suggesting that, nor was anyone else. I really think you're reading too much into it. I'm merely suggesting, the rather obvious thought that you and everyone else here probably understands, that a group of animals where the weak and old die to make way for the new (obviously not in a self-sacrofice way, but just how the animals are) will probnably be more successful, on average, that a group of animals where the old very slowly, or indeed even never, die.
Now, I apologise that the use of language "evolution is not interested in this outcome" caused such confusion.
I apologize for being so gung-ho in my attack on your original comment. The criticism really wasn't worth the paragraphs I poured into it. I think it struck a chord because I somewhat recently read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and I, as many holders of a head full of fresh new ideas are wont to do, swung them like a hammer at the first thing that might, in a particular light, from a particular angle, look like a nail.
Species is a nebulous conflation of genetics, behavior and habitat. Some like to say that ability to bear fertile offspring is the limit to determine speciation. This definition allows ignoring the mule offspring of horses and donkeys, strengthening the position that the latter are different species, but fails on the liger, which can be fertile with few people claiming tigers and lions to be of the same species. So breeding is insufficient to determine species.
Species is then more a measure of the human perception of things being different than any more specific quality.
The idea that a species could somehow convince its constituent individuals to act for the benefit of the species isn't useful. Individual members of the species will each act with self-interest in the pursuit of resources, mates and territory. Altruistic behaviors will propagate by out-competing "cheating" behaviors, and most often multiple simultaneous behavior strategies will exist within a population. Even within an individual, which might choose different actions in different situations.
If there was more benefit to living longer in the species, cheaters would certainly exploit it in the face of "dying for the good of the species". However, if the detriments of living longer cause the individual to be unable to compete with shorter living individuals, the species will continue to tend to a shorter lifespan.
Suggesting that the creatures will conspire to die and make room for their offspring suggests that the anthropomorphized idea of species is causing faulty assumptions about the nature of the subject to be held, and that the metaphor should be discarded as detrimental to understanding.