|
>>>I measure my "biological success" by the number of grandchildren I (will) have, because that is the definition of biological success.<<< >>That makes one muddy thinker who says that it is so.... You would say that someone with 100 grandchildren and ZERO great-grandchildren was more successful that someone with 99 grandchildren, 1000 great-grandchildren, 10000 great-great-grandchildren, and 100000 great-great-great grandchildren would you?<< In terms of biological success, yes. It is the children of the man with 100 grandchildren who are biologically unsuccessful. >>How about someone who had lots of grandchildren and murdered them all?<< It's the same rather ridiculous scenario. The children are unsuccessful, and should have protected their children from their loony (but biologically successful) grandparent. One reason for assessing biological success based on grandchildren, is that in the long run, we're all dead. The dinosaurs are now extinct, so by your implied logic, they were all unsuccessful, even though many generations of dinosaurs were successful. Another reason is that if you don't draw a time line, the score keeps changing - the game never ends. Finally, the grandparents are intuitively just not as responsible for the success of their grandchildren as their children are, and certainly should not be held responsible for the success or failure of generations born after their deaths.
| 
