I have a quandary for developmental/evolutionist psychologists… showers thoughts
What if a natural apathy is the recessive gene that managed to gain more approval becoming the dominant gene and having no apathy was originally the dominant one? Think about it. If our furthest ancestors were from the chimpanzee’s lineage, and chimps are considered animals, which makes us just evolved animals, yet animals don’t have what we call apathy. Why? Because in survival of the fittest, apathy is dangerous. Mothers will try to protect their young, however, that’s just due to another evolutionary trait where it’s ingrained in us to procreate and produce futures of our kind. If animals were to constantly put their lives on the line for another, it would decrease their survival rate and increase their extinction potential.
I know animal lovers would disagree because there are times when they display features that appear to be apathy. But, is it really? I don’t think so. For example, a dog forms a bond with a human so strong that they’d risk their life to save them, or when another animal they’re close to dies they seem apathetic, or a bird you saved keeps coming back to see you. Must be some kind of emotional reaction, right? Not necessarily. There are women (or men) who will stay in an abusive relationship because the other person takes care of all their needs. If a restaurant throws out their left overs like clock work, homeless in the area will stay close by. Civilizations started near bodies of fresh water for the easy access to sustenance. See where I’m going? On a minimal level there may be something, but for the most part their behaviors can be explained by our evolutionary survival skills.
Why do I bring this up? Well… so say because apathy isn’t really a necessary trait for an animal, it stayed as a recessive type gene (like the minimal level mentioned above). But then our ancestors through the evolutionary process, and when they started migrating, started grouping together more frequently. If you have a bunch of individuals who don’t give a damn about anyone else there’s bound to be trouble. This is when the apathy gene starts gaining traction. As more humans with apathetic traits pass on this traits it becomes the dominant gene, turning the lack of apathy into the recessive gene— but never gone. It still shows up in ‘disorders’ like what we now call autism.
If true, those who are neurodivergent ASD were once the normal ones. Idk I just found that theory interesting and liked the idea of being the norm lol