On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:13:49 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:


By and large, this is not significant. The numbers can be increased by
quality or quantity. A man will have sex pretty much with *any* women,
so long as they're not fat:-). If a women goes up to a man stranger, in
a pub and says, lets go back to my place, its a done deal. There is no
much of a disadvage numbers wise, a man has offspring by every women he
can so he does. On the over hand, a women can not do this. Once she's
pregnant, that's her out of the game for 9 months. The only way she can
get her genes to replicate faster is by choosing better gene stock. This
makes her absolutely choosy.

Not quite. She's out of the game for considerably more than 9 months
and not only that, she's run off her feet nurturing for years to come.
Consider the disparity in investment:
Male: 15 minutes 'work-ouk' producing two teaspoons of semen. Total
cost to male: the semen that would be naturally lost anyway, plus
maybe having to forego the time to down half a pint of beer with his
chums in the local pub.

Female: 9 months carrying, physical disfigurement, much physical pain
and then she's lumbered with a unceasingly demanding child who keeps
her from doing anything else than looking after it, morning noon and
night for years to come. Opportunity cost: work it out for yourself
but it's *enormous*. She's choosy because her investment into the
project is vast and has to be worth it in the long term. He's not
because his investment is negligable. Anything in a skirt will
suffice, particularly after a few beers.

I think you have still missed an important point here. Yes, I agree that
there is some truth in this, and this is a pretty obvious analysis, but
it is not that significant. The most important facter is good gene
stock. Its the only factor. She will chose a mate based on what
characteristics the offspring will have. Not what's in her personal best
interest. The body is only a vehicle for the genes. Bodies don't copy
themselves, so cant form a basis for replication, only genes replicate.
If it is the net best interest of the genes, they will sacrifice the
vehicle to enable better success for themselves.

I'm not sure I understand you fully here. Some of your above remarks a
a bit disjointed. If you can re-phrase it to make more sense I'll try
and tackle this paragraph before I have to jet-off 2morrow.

But in practice, the single most significant aspect, even today, is
physical appearance. It has to be. Its pretty much universal what is
considered good looking, many studies have been done. Sure, its useful
to have other aspects. A show of wealth, is obviously an indicator that
her offspring may also get this characteristic (ignoring the details of
how for now), but in pracise, you have to be pretty damn weathy if you
want to take Liz Harley to bed.

No thanks. It's *she* who'd have to be bloody well-off. I'm rather
fussy, I'll have you know.
But I'd agree that physical appearance is the single most significant
aspect with the accent on *single* and probably has been for all time
so far as the human race is concerned.
Shows of wealth are often a bit misleading. Wimmin do find them highly
attractive. But the reason they *think* they find them attractive
(nice house, nice holidays, nice car etc) and not the same as the
*real* reason they do, which is simply their genes trying to ensure
for themselves that the mate in question will be able to give the
offspring the best possible shot at life: better diet, better
schooling, better upbringing, better adult prospects of that offspring
attracting a similarly classy mate for him/herself.

I don't agree. Reviews mean f'all. Have you actually read all the
"review" on the later editions of Hawking's "Brief history of time".
It make you want to vomit. Sure, his a very clever dude, but he is
ceratyinly not a god.

I didn't say he was. In fact he admitted to wasting much time working
on 'singularities' with Roger Penrose donkey's years ago.

As noted above, it was the selfish gene that revolutionised the
approach to evolution as to the body being a mere vehicle for the
masters, the genes and memes.

Let's just put it down to a matter of personal preference, then.

[not particularly relevant Einstein example snipped]

Oh?

Straying too far off the subject for too long, Kev. I'm familiar with
Albert's work, too. And all the others of his ilk that were kicking
around in the early years of the 20th Century. Can't afford to get
bogged down in yet another off-topic discussion on the net. This
little excursion into human nature is taking the **** as it is.
Remember this is supposed to be an electronics design group!

That's because you didn't see the point of the Einstein example. Go back
and read it again to get the *bigger* picture.

I should only have to read your postings *once* m8. If you took more
trouble with your spelling, grammar and phraseology, these frequent
accusations you make about others' failing to understand you would
take up a good deal less of your time.

Nope. I happen to believe in conservation of energy and momentum. You
views denied this. I look at the bigger picture. I am not familiar with
all the details of economics so I didn't want to get bogged down there.
A general theorem that you cant get blood from a stone doesn't need the
details, but as I said, cant be bothered expanding on it.

Whatever. In any event I have no wish to **** decent people off by
making a habit of this kind of unfortunate off-topic exchange.

If you mean that we might be able to override the gene's "intentions", I
don't know if what he says is really what he believes, or is an attempt
to appease the masses for politically correct reasons.

The pressure from the PC brigade in the writer's mind must always be
considered when reading these kind of books. It's outrageous that some
ingorant pigs appear to take the view that their own personal
prejudices (like for a more equal world) should take precidence over
Truth. :-(

The problem is, the only way to override a Replicator, is make a better
one. Unfortunately, the ones we have, have millions of years of a head
start. You try not getting a hard on if naked striper sits on your lap.

I'm not like most other men so kindly don't judge me in such crude
terms.

I explained this, the 5 team bunch of skinheads verses the single guy,
although there is a number of factors. The fundermental reason is that
the genes expect a payback. Of course, detrimental characteristics are
still being randamly generated, so some of them are fools. Have you been
to the dawin awards site http://www.darwinawards.com/ ?

I'm sufficiently aware of the concept not to need to. In any event,
there are staggering numbers of fools wherever one looks in everyday
life without having to seek them out on the 'net to add to one's woes
over the state of humanity.

In *general*, is it good or bad to gain a respected reputation?

Generally good, of course. A few exceptions for pop stars, writers,
actors and artists, though.

Genes don't know when helping is going to be beneficial or not, they
cant think. They don't know the future. Replication is only based on
probabilities. If you help nobody, what's the probability you will get
help back? One has to look at the numbers from game theory. Give various
traits, e.g helpfulness, punishment, slyness, e.g. tit for tat strategy
etc. The final numbers give what strategies are stable, or drive the
group to extinction.

So, people are helpful to others because, statistically, this strategy
results in net benefit to themselves, statisticly.

Well maybe you've finally explained with reasonable clarity what you
were struggling to explain earlier. If you'd now agree with me that
the charitable types, in the main, *believe* they are genuinely giving
something away to a worthy cause at a net cost to themselves, out of
the kindness of their hearts, then maybe we can at last say we've
found some common ground!
Let's hope so! :-)

--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill