Organisms do what they can, where they can, when they can.

“Social” is derived from the Latin, “socius,” meaning “partner” or “cooperator.” (Let the Latin scholars descend upon and correct me.)

Social animals are those which have evolved to practice a certain amount of cooperation because it worked well for them and they hung onto the idea, as it were. In the case of humans, some slings and arrows of outrageous mutations gave rise, in the realm of the “Great Success” of cooperation, to hierarchical culture, or control over others of their species. Culture led to a compounding of “success” in terms of a reproductive bubble and control-freaky hierarchical authoritarianism, outside the “walls” of “Eden” and into the “Hell” of dominant corporate monarchies. The merely social fraction (shall we say, “the 99%”?) of cultures is fed upon by the dominant figureheads (shall we say, “the 1%”?) who do nothing but blissfully gamble with their own futures and the welfare of other humans and the earth. Humans are not well-adapted to being solitary. Kadafi found this out as he was dragged out of a drainpipe and beaten to death by his “own” “people.” The 0.0001 (plus or minus?) percent given a tiny dose of his own medicine.

“Culture” comes from the Latin, “cultus,” to cultivate (the land). Sodbusters. Farmers. Urbanites. Destroyers of “Eden.” The land once “cooperated” with the migratory social units which, “In the [true] Beginning” rarely took more from their support system than they needed, accumulating no wealth, only necessities.

Some mutations lead to extinction.

In order to understand the present and the future, is it not necessary to understand the beginning as well as we can?

On a separate note, “genetically based sterility” doesn’t play a role in human sociliaty, but it is also rare in the eusocial insects. In many species, if not most, reproductive caste determination is driven by larval environment (typically nutritional), not genetics. Genetic caste determination is definitely not a part of the definition of eusociality, reproductive division of labor is.

Sorry to quibble about definitions, but they are important when trying to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing!

The answer is right there within the statement of the question. If environment is defined as everything that acts upon an organism, then there the nothing that drives evolution beyond environment, by your own definition.

Strip out the useless cruft. What value is the phrase “With respect to the issue”? It means nothing. (What issue?). “What ultimately drives evolution beyond survival and reproduction and environment?” Well, you can look this up. Evolution is the differential survival of genes in populations over time. That’s definitional. What do you mean by “ultimately”? It is a confusing and useless word in this context.

“Im here to learn from the experts.” That sure sounds like sarcastic snark. Similarly your phrase: “Do all of you [evolutionary biologists]“. Many (most) of us are not evolutionary biologists, at least not by formal training or trade. What is the value of the phrase, used as you do? The context of misleading questions sure seem to be searching for a crevice in which to insert a deity. Maybe Vishnu. Maybe Gaia. But I’ll put my money on Jebbus, given the geography.

“With respect to the issue, what ultimately drives evolution beyond survival and reproduction and environment? Please replace this statement with the correct one. (Or confirm it?) I’m here to learn about evolution from the experts.”

[Please note the last sentence in the preceding paragraph.]

Another question. Do all of you [evolutionary biologists] believe that organisms require an assemblage of traits that match the conditions of environment (environmental context) closely enough to continue to exist as a viable species? Is environment the ultimate arbiter in extinction and survival?

Yes, of course. But mustn’t the traits that drift do so because an organism lived to reproduce, taking them along for the ride, as it were?

Should we be thinking in terms of traits that prevent success rather than promote it? I’ve heard it said that “evolution is what’s left over after everything else is gone.”

If this isn’t true can anyone explain why not?