[extropy-chat] is spreading ones own genes relevant, or just an anachronism ?

Tue Aug 23 21:11:39 UTC 2005

--- user <user at dhp.com> wrote:

> So my question is:
> 
> - in a post-technology, but pre-singularity world,
> should I be thinking,
> on any level, about this particular progeny contest
> ?  Or is it, even now
> in a pre-singularity world, a hopeless anachronism ?

Well speaking as a biologist, my advice to you is to
stop thinking about it as a "contest". Although at a
certain level one can model the propagation of genes
as a competition, it is in all truth a contest between
genes that you yourself have no stake in. For one
thing genes compete with one another at all levels so
even your own genes are "competing" with one another.
While you are technically a primate and an animal, the
part of you that actually answers to your name is your
MIND. This means the actual YOU that realizes that it
thinks and therefore exists, is irrelevant to your
genes. And conversely, your genes are irrelevant to
YOU except in so far as they place limitations on YOU.
For example you might want to live forever or run as
fast as a cheetah, but your genes, as they are, do not
allow this. 

> 
> - I feel as if I have a duty to reproduce, and
> further, to reproduce well,
> which is based on a belief that the existence of the
> human race is a good,
> and I want it to continue.  Should I also be
> examining my own self as an
> individual, and deciding if my own lineage is also a
> "good" and should
> continue, independently of my duty to the race as a
> whole ?

While I agree with you that humanity is a good
(subjectively of course as I am sure that the giant
panda would beg to differ if it knew how to), human
beings are an example of a good that more of does not
necessarily make better. In this way the economic law
of supply and demand somewhat applies to us. The more
humans there are, the less each additional person
matters to the whole and sadly to one another. I think
this, in part, explains why big city dwellers can be
rather cold and unfriendly toward one another whereas
the denizens of small towns are much more amiable to
one another in general. Think of it this way: if you
have one child that child will be cherished by you.
But if you have 100 children, you probably won't even
bother to keep track of them all. 

> 
> - Is it incorrect to think that perhaps the
> continued evolution of mankind
> is currently being retarded by the de facto
> situation of monogamous
> male/female interaction followed by 1 to 2.5
> children ?  It seems to me
> that if we were competing in a free market, so to
> speak, the number of
> offspring would correlate to the fittest of
> individuals, which on a macro
> scale would be positive for the race.

Not necessarily. For one thing, even for lesser
lifeforms, fitness is a moving target that is purely
relative to a given environment. Secondly, the
PERCEPTION of fitness by a potential mate is often as
important or in some cases more important than fitness
itself. This is called sexual selection and explains
such oddities as the peacock's tail and Colin Farrell.

In humans this is further compounded by the fact that
we have come to CONTROL our environment to such an
extent that fitness is no longer a prerequisite for
survival, at least not until we have had ample
opportunity to breed. Because we value EVERY human
life regardless of their fitness level, we allow and
even aid the survival of the sick, the injured, the
slow, the weak, the poor, and the stupid because we
CAN. And this, while not necessarily good for the
evolutionary "improvement" of the species, is a MORAL
good. If you ponder that the invention of eyeglasses
has actually WORSENED the average visual acuity of the
human race but ALSO kept Issaac Asimov from tripping
and falling to his untimely death, you will understand
what I mean by moral good versus overall fitness.

Moreover these examples certainly constitutes
proof-of-principle that we alone, amongst the
creatures of the earth, are capable of superceding
nature in regards to control of our own evolution.    

> On the other hand:
> 
> - could it be argued that, at least for human
> beings, the benefits of a
> two parent, nuclear family outweigh a greater number
> of semi-anonymously
> raised children?  That over the long term, 2-4 well
> raised and nurtured
> children will carry ones genes farther than 30
> randomly sprouted ?

In the western world, 30 randomly sprouted children
would probably survive to breeding age all the same,
but they might not necessarily be happy. So it depends
entirely on how you define "benefits". In regards to
whether 30 children or 2 will carry ones genes
further, the number of one's children does not matter.
No matter how many children you have, they will at
most carry exactly half your genes exactly the same
distance: one generation. 

> 
> 
> Let me boil it down to this:
> 
> Any reasonably successful american male could very
> easily travel the world
> producing offspring with willing and grateful women,
> and arranging for its
> reasonable (anonymous or not) support.  In this
> manner one could not only
> spread ones genes quite far geographically, but one
> could also hedge ones
> bets both individually and racially.  Current wealth
> disparities make this
> easy and inexpensive (and probably not very time
> consuming
> either).  Intercourse itself need not even be
> involved.
> So my question is, why aren't people doing this ? 
> Why aren't _you_ doing
> this ?  Why shouldn't or should I do this ?

I think you overestimate the value of American sperm
and underestimate foreign women. Especially since in
many cultures having a child out of wedlock lowers a
woman's chances of finding happiness with a REAL
partner. Remember that to most humans, relationships
have value above and beyond simple procreation. 

> 
> Why should I care specifically about my own genes,
> and why should I
> attempt to maxmize their distribution, in this, the
> post-technological but
> pre-singularity age ?  And if the answer is "I
> shouldn't", then why is it
> different now than it was when this _was_ important
> ?

Well the biggest difference between then and now is
that back then very few of your children could be
expected to live to adulthood.  Most children live to
adulthood these days, even if they are morons, and
sometimes become jerks in the process. So my advice to
you is to have no more kids than you would care to
love and nurture. Don't rule out adoption either. I
know lots of people that dislike their parents. None
of them are adopted. The adopted ones are for the most
part grateful. 

Furthermore you shouldn't be overly concerned about
your genes because they sure don't give a damn about
you. Once you pass them on, the half that are in your
child aren't even technically yours anymore, they are
your childs. In fact, the best way to look at it is
that both you and your child actually belong to your
genes. The genes use you and everyone else to
propagate themselves and have no loyalty at all to the
YOU that answers to your name. Don't be a slave to
your genes, like a simple worm or germ.

There is more to YOU, after all, than the monkey that
carries your wallet. 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 