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

[user]

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, kevinfreels.com wrote:

> When you die, you lose. It doesn't matter if your genes persist.


Eh ... this sounds very selfish.  If my genes contain:

a) fitness
b) the ability to attract other mates of equal or greater fitness

and if my most cherished _intellectual_ goal is the continuation and
enlargement of the human race, then it would seem that I lose if I do not
maximize the tools I have to push that goal along ...

I would think a better definition of losing would refer to losing in terms
of the intellectual goal - which means you lose if your actions produce a
net drag, or loss, on the expansion and betterment of humankind.  Which
seems to suggest that winning would be producing a net gain (above what
you take away from the system by existing within it).

And in the course of this topic, I am trying to hypothetically decide what
is a bigger net gain for humanity - my raising 2-3 kids hands on, or
fighting it out in the mate finding contest (against a fairly strong tide
of tradition, culture, and probably laws and finances) to see if I am
really as fit as I think I am.

My gut reaction this morning is that, if I had a crystal ball, 2-3 kids
raised hands on in a loving nuclear family probably produce more net gain
for mankind than 30 randomly sprouted, all else being equal.