From: usenet@baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   In message   
   , David   
   Friedman  writes   
   >In article ,   
   > Helen Hall  wrote:   
   >   
   >> >Why? To the extent that being a good provider is due to heritable   
   >> >characteristics, she wants those characteristics for her offspring, so   
   >> >why should she bear children by other and worse providers?   
   >> >   
   >> Because he's cute and charming and fun to be with. As Aqua said, there   
   >> is strong selection on the grounds of appearance.   
   >>   
   >   
   >I thought our argument was running on evolutionary line. Certainly I   
   >agree that humans, to a considerable extent, succeed in sacrificing the   
   >interests of their genes to their own interets, but I didn't think that   
   >was the point being made.   
   >   
   >I took it that "bad strategy" meant "bad strategy for reproductive   
   >success," not "bad strategy for being happy."   
   >   
   But humans don't normally consciously chose their mates for reproductive   
   success. And as Catja says, the cute, charming, good looking and fun to   
   be with mate might have other survival techniques than just being the   
   biggest and strongest and best hunter.   
      
   Humans are just too complicated to pick out one factor and give it undue   
   prominence.   
      
   Helen   
   --   
   Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)