Hacker News Reader

Comment by terranstyler | Hacker News Reader

I'd say that it is in the host's own interest to maximize sexual activity given all other constraints (long term survival and reproduction).

This is why a parasite won't be able to improve (or optimize) it further since it is fully aligned with the host's incentives.

TLDR: You can't improve what's already optimal

View on HN

I agree with that point with respect to the host's fitness. But the conflict here stems from the fact that those other constraints (such as the host's long term survival or reproduction) has little or no value in itself to the parasite, so there's a chance to have a mismatch of fitness objectives between the host and the parasite.

If I understand correctly, you suggest that a parasite would sacrifice "long term survival" or "offspring adulthood probability" to achieve increased reproductive success!?

Hmm, the host could for example go on a "raping spree" but it unsure how this would lead to _significantly_ increased reproduction (I suppose this is an energetically costly enterprise) and why the raping spree wouldn't be already an "integrated" behavior if it were so successful.

In this case 'a parasite would sacrifice host long term survival or host offspring adulthood probability to achieve increase it's own reproductive success'.

The article concerns parasite manipulation of host behaviour, and to the extent that such manipulation can take control the host will act in the parasite's genetic interest rather than it's own.

Is there a conflict? It seems probable the only purpose of surviving is to increase the odds of a successful reproduction.

Survival of the offspring is also a factor. Better one that makes it to adulthood than ten who do not.

From a mystic point of view Kundalini cannot be hijacked :D

Reply on news.ycombinator.com