Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 7:18:16 GMT -5
A certain Miss Smith, the authoress of a book about reptile smuggling, has become so worked up about the life and work of the unsuccessful family man William D. Hamilton that she has written in to us to publicize the case. "He," she writes, "was an unkind Kent person from Egypt who advocated Eugenics. It was during his wandering London years that he worked through the first mathematical models of what he called ' inclusive fitness.' This concept argued that an organism could increase its genetic success not merely by reproducing itself, but also by aiding the reproduction and survival of relatives carrying some proportion of identical genes. In equations later to be refined and simplified as ' Hamilton's Rule' he quantified the likelihood of an organism behaving altruistically in terms of a balance between the costs and benefits of doing so and the genetic relatedness between the actor and the beneficiary." Well! How cruel! I think Mr. Hamilton did not consider the possibility that other people's lives might not have been his business! Six questions at once arise: 1) Are you an organism; or if not have you ever had carnal knowledge of one? 2) When members venture into a gay bar do they weigh up the costs and benefits? 3) What steps have members taken in regard to the reproduction and survival of their relatives? And why? (Or why not?) 4) Is it possible to breed a race of philosophers - and out of what raw materials? 5) Do you believe in the Red Queen theory of sex? 6) Would it have been wise to put Hamilton down even earlier?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 7:37:37 GMT -5
If I may address all seven of your questions directly, Sydney: 1) Are you an organism; or if not have you ever had carnal knowledge of one? I am an organism and have had carnal knowledge of other organisms, too! 2) When members venture into a gay bar do they weigh up the costs and benefits? No. My own particular preference is straight, although I can still see things from alternative perspectives. Cost-benefit analyses, however, can be tricky! 3) What steps have members taken in regard to the reproduction and survival of their relatives? And why? (Or why not?) [/b][/quote] Well, I suppose that one can help find viable mates, although disgression is quite important on such occasions. I do not wish to be more explicit! 4) Is it possible to breed a race of philosophers - and out of what raw materials? I don't think that philosophers could constitute a race! 5) Do you believe in the Red Queen theory of sex? It is an interesting hypothesis, Sydney. Wikipedia - Red Queen hypothesis6) Would it have been wise to put Hamilton down even earlier? On balance, I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt! 7) Anything you can do for the relatives? Well, where there's a will, there's a relative! The best bet, in my experience, is to send them a postcard occasionally instead!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2013 14:27:59 GMT -5
Someone I know inherited 2 houses, form uncles, who had no children of their own, which, it seems, gave him a certain advantage in life, so, as they shared some genes, one could say, 'something in it'. Evolution is very complex really, think of actions as a 'percentage' game over time, think 'more likely to...' than 'always will'. Darwin did say that luck was a major factor, is interesting the number of homes and parks that came about due to the 'officer' class being wiped out during world war 1, which considering the loss to society, makes one think, perhaps maybe better that officers did not lead from the front I would advise not thinking about evolution too much www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hd1mr/Darwins_Struggle_The_Evolution_of_the_Origin_of_Species/
|
|