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

[user]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, The Avantguardian wrote:

> 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

Hmmm...I have taken somewhat to heart such statements as Frank Herbert has
made, wherein the capacity that a system has for life increases as more
life is added to it, or more philosophically Joseph Campbells admonitions
that "life must be", etc.

Are these two things junkscience and romanticism, respectively ?  Of
course there are local constraints, like the size of an apartment or
island or planet, but in asmuch as you are not actually using all physical
space...

I am drifting off topic, though.


> 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. 


Yes, that's true, but consider what my genes have bought for me in the
meantime - namely, the most fit mates that I can possibly acquire with my
level of fitness (the expression of my genes).

So let's say I take stock of myself and decide that I am pretty hot stuff,
as far as human gene expressions go, and decide that, as far as my goal of
the continuation and enlargement and betterment of the human race goes,
the more of me the better.  I then seek out the most fit mates that I can
convince to (willingly) bear my children, as many as possible.

If I am right about myself, I can do the convincing and the reproduction,
and the financial support, etc., etc.  And although the resultant children
only share 50% of my literal genetic code, they are all 100% direct
expressions of my genetic code, since my genes were the ones that willed
this to happen, and were fit enough to acquire and maintain >1 mates.

I wonder if discussing it in terms of genes is just a bad idea, and
instead, if I frame it in terms of accumulated reproductive decisions:  I
may only share 12.5% or 6.25% of a particular great grandparents actual
genetic code, but I am the 100% result of those accumulated
selections.  The fitter I think I am, the more of these positive
selections I think I should be making - and I am simply wondering why the
human contest for mates (not the gene contest for survival) is so bland,
currently - because it seems that if more people had zero offspring, and
more people had 30, we would have fitter humans.

On the other hand, I wonder if the resultant violence from such behavior,
and such a human contest, cancels out the gains.

There has to be some reason we are all doing it the way we do now, and not
the way we used to ...

But on the third hand, in an environment of nuclear families with 2-3
children, the sudden introduction of persons reverting to the old rules of
the game would have much amplified consequences, wouldn't it ?  It would
seem that in the current climate, you could have your cake and eat it too
- propogate your own accumulated reproductive decisions as far as you can,
and avoid the violence precipitated by such actions when done across all
of a society...