Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!godot!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Next generation
Message-ID: <392@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Mar-85 13:58:05 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.392
Posted: Wed Mar  6 13:58:05 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 20:11:10 EST
References: <487@whuxl.UUCP> <1407@ut-ngp.UUCP> <22824@lanl.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 23
Summary: 

Some misunderstanding of evolution to clear up here:

[Ken Montgomery]
> I'm not a [Ll]ibertarian, per se, but I still disagree with the idea
> that I have a "*duty*" to care for the next generation.  Why is it
> my duty to maintain the continuity of the species?

[J. Giles]
> This is where evolution takes a hand.  Those who share the above view are
> unlikely to have supporters among the next generation.  One presumes that
> Ken Montgomery's parents didn't have this bias either, so Ken must be
> an unsuccessful mutation in this generation.

Giles' conclusion might be true, except that he overlooks the possibility
that Ken is only speaking his CURRENT interests.  If Ken develops (:-)
children, his ideas of duty might change.  Just as people's opinions tend
to reflect the econmic interests of their class, and thus change, so Ken's
opinions might change as his circumstances change.  It's a strongly
adaptive strategy, if that sort of hypocrisy or opportunism doesn't earn
a maladaptive reaction.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh