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

[Russell Wallace]

On 8/24/05, user <user at dhp.com> wrote:
> 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.

Looked at on the large scale and in the long term, the current custom
of having fewer children than bare numeric replacement (average 1-2,
bare numeric replacement being necessarily more than 2) is certainly
an aberration. On the other hand, it's clear that wandering around
trying to randomly mate with as many women as will consent in the hope
of producing "30 randomly sprouted" children has not usually been a
winning strategy either.

The best strategy for passing on one's genes and contributing to the
human capital of future generations, looking at what has worked in the
past and what still works in the present, seems to be to find an
attractive/fit mate with whom you can fall in love (quite apart from
its intrinsic value, love and commitment are important for maintaining
a stable relationship) and who is willing to have as many children as
reasonably possible; in modern conditions it should be quite feasible
for a couple to have say 7 or 8 children and raise them all to healthy
and happy adulthood.

- Russell