|
>> >> 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. 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?
** For those unfamiliar with genetics, nine great-grandchildren is one greater than the
genetic 'break-even' point of eight. Why eight? Well, bearing in mind that each of your children
has 50% of your own genes, you need two children to genetically break even in the next generation.
So the break-even point is 2 children, 4 grandchildren, 8 great-grandchildren etc. Of course one
little holocaust can ruin your whole history ..
*** The other point is that it's actually not even necessary to have any
children to genetically proliferate. A homosexual who helps to raise a large
family of a sibling's is actually genetically doing his/her part if their
domestic contribution generates sufficient number of relatives. This has been suggested as a reason for the survival of a 'homosexual gene'
in the population, but personally the theory sounded a bit queer to me.
| 
