|
>>>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. (Elk?) >>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).
| 
