|
>> >> >> I measure my "biological success" by the number of grandchildren I (will)
>> >> >> have, because that is the definition of biological success. >> >> Really? That is **THE** definition of biological success is it? In all my
>> >> readings on genetics, and selfish gene theory, and the discussions I have had
>> >> with bioligists and their elk, I have never actually heard of that
>> >> definition. >> Well you've heard of it now. That makes one muddy thinker who says that it is so. >> (Elk?) ilk. State your argument. I'm not interested in trivialities. >> >> What about someone who had 100 grandchildren, but ZERO great-grandchildren?
>> >> Would they be more biologically successful than someone who merely had nine
>> >> great-grandchildren? You really haven't thought this through very clearly have
>> >> you? >> In the long run, we're all dead, so biologists have wisely placed a time limit
>> on biological success. The reason for this limit is that a count of your
>> grandchildren measures your ability to nurture your children so that they also
>> have children. >> In the extremely unlikely scenario you asked about, the grandparent of 100
>> would still technically be biologically successful, by virtue of his 100
>> grandchildren, but his children would be unsucessful (with zero grandchildren). Let's explore this further. 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? How about someone who had lots of grandchildren and murdered them all?
Highly successful? Hmm? All those mad Islamofacists raising lots of grandchildren so they can all
become suicide bombers before they can reproduce? What a formula for success! Your definition is a bit like a university course in feminism: irrational
and almost (but not quite) useless.
| 
