In a message dated 7/6/2004 9:16:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Tribal people who worried about the conditions their great grandchildren
> would face would have been out reproduced by those who were putting their
> concern on getting their children through the next winter (or drought).
>
Actually it makes great evolutionary sense to care about your grandchildren.
In how many grand children you produce is much more important than how many
children you produce. Producing a child does not in anyway guarentee that your
genes will thrive. It is how many copies they pass on. By using the notion of
grandchildren rather children you get to assess the entire process by which
your genes get into future generations.If you produce 100 kids but only two make
it to reproduce themselves you do less well than if you produce 5 children but
3 reproduce themselves you have done better.
You are, of course, correct in what you say, but that's not what David posted or I replied to. Worrying about what shape the *farmland* would be in 3 generations hence isn't the same as caring about your grandchildren or even great grandchildren. (Though it might be a good idea.)
Keith Henson
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
