Eric Baum wrote:
...
Evolution does not produce optimal programs, only very good ones.
Also the optimal solution for a complex problem will not on most
complex problems do what might be thought the optimal thing on
every instance. A simple example is the max flow problem, in which the
optimal flow will usually not utilize the allowed flow along many edges.
Evolution is probably above your ethics, but obviously if you could
turn off pain, you would likely behave in ways that are less fit from
evolution's point of view than the program it gave you. Recently people
have discovered how to turn off pregnancy, and until evolution catches
up, they have been widely doing things that are likely less "fit" than
if they hadn't been able to turn off pregnancy.
If you are an R-strategist, then I agree that birth control is against
the program. For a K-strategist, however, it fits in nicely.
R (think of rabbit) strategists tend to reproduce quickly, with small
investment in each offspring. K (carnivore) strategists reproduce
relatively slowly, and invest heavily in each offspring. Both modes
have been successful. For a K-strategist, then, it's important to have
the proper environment and support available when raising offspring.
Otherwise one should defer child-bearing. Thus for a K-strategist,
birth-control enables selection of proper mate+environment. And placing
proper limits on the number. As this depends on variables that
evolutions could not properly predict, birth-control is a proper answer.
N.B.: People have practiced birth control as far back as we have
information. Look into the story of Oedipus Rex. Study the histories
of the Polynesians. The only modern feature is that we are now allowing
the practice to occur before the investment in pregnancy.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
