[ExI] Fermi Paradox and Transcension

[Stefano Vaj]

On 14 September 2012 02:46, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> "Small family size increases the wealth of descendants but reduces
> evolutionary success"
> http://esciencenews.com/**articles/2012/08/28/small.**
> family.size.increases.wealth.**descendants.reduces.**evolutionary.success<http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/08/28/small.family.size.increases.wealth.descendants.reduces.evolutionary.success>
> http://rspb.**royalsocietypublishing.org/**content/early/2012/08/27/rspb.*
> *2012.1415<http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/08/27/rspb.2012.1415>
> It turns out that people rationally have fewer children because it gives
> them a better life, despite this being long-term worse for their genes.
>

Of course, genes are not so clever. They may hardcode mechanisms in living
organisms thare are not really profitable in some scenarios - eg, an animal
who opt for saving its life even though this may jeopardise its fertility,
given that "normally" survival is best for the genes of the bearer.

But I have always though that high and low parental-investment policies
were both plausible form an inter-specific or intra-specific POV. For
instance, most fish leave their eggs in the wild and trust the law of large
numbers to have a few survive. I understand camels to have very little
progeny, on the other hand.

In human societies, one would expect the reward for high parental
investment to be higher were sexual selection is harsh, and its
distribution on a large number of children to have more chances of
increasing its dominance in egalitarian contexts...

--
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120914/a5e423ca/attachment.html>