Quoting Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> --- Marko Paunovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I can't really see a situation where decision not to have children is
> > good for your genes.
>
> What matters for evolution is the propagation of the species, not
> individuals. So if most individual
--- Marko Paunovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't really see a situation where decision not to have children is
> good for your genes.
What matters for evolution is the propagation of the species, not
individuals. So if most individuals have children, but some choose to
enhance the welfare
On 2003-07-01, Marko Paunovic uttered to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>However, I don't think that there is any evidence, except in social
>insects, for this kind of specialization that you are suggesting.
The existence of two sexes appears an obvious counter-example. There are
also some reasons to expect
"Sampo Syreeni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2003-07-01, Marko Paunovic uttered to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> >Because gene for "not wanting children" will not be around for too long,
> >but only for one generation.
>
> Not true. For instance, such a gene could have positive effects on the
> other
On 2003-07-01, Marko Paunovic uttered to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>Because gene for "not wanting children" will not be around for too long,
>but only for one generation.
Not true. For instance, such a gene could have positive effects on the
other people in your tribe (say, added time for common childca
"Fred Foldvary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is deciding not to have children against the interest of the genes?
Because gene for "not wanting children" will not be around for too long, but
only for one generation.
> Note also that modern parents stop at one or two
> children, rather than
--- Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and also often act directly against
> the interest of their genes (e.g., deciding not to have children) when
> they apply more rational decision processes.
Why is deciding not to have children against the interest of the genes?
Genes also induce people t
On Mon, Jun 30, 2003 at 08:32:55PM -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
> This seems to me to confuse the decision with how the decision is
> represented and implemented. There are presumably many ways to disperse
> a decision process and make it robust to random errors, and some of those
> ways may be comp
On 6/30/2003, Wei Dai wrote:
A perfect optimizer who behaves according to decision theory (or some
bounded-rationality version of it) is very vulnerable to small changes in
its utility function definition or the module responsible for interpreting
the meaning of terms in the utility function defini
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/852lodkv.asp
This fascinating article shows pretty conclusively that at least some
people are optimizers, although maybe they're the exception. BTW, if you
ever need to have an A+ grade removed from your academic record, rea
10 matches
Mail list logo
