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