Just had a baby...am I now redundant according to Darwin?

Question

....since I have passed on my genes...

Answer 1

Don't know about Darwin's use/definition for 'redundant' ---

BUT

According to Webster's (dictionary)-Only YOU can determine whether or not your baby is 'needlessly repetetive'. . . (definition in Webster's)

In this context, seems that you are NOT redundant, as you did not produce twins, you are not a twin, and cloning did not occur.

I think you are just experiencing post-partum euphoria. . .congrats, and best wishes for ya'lls lives, together!!

Answer 2

No, you only pass on about 50% of your genes per baby, and if you are male, you have to have one girl and one boy to ensure that both your X and your Y chromosome survive. So really, you have to have more than two babies to get all your genes into the next generation. Even then, your offspring need to survive and reproduce at a higher rate than the other humans in the population. So if have more babies than anybody else on the planet, then you will be redundant.

Answer 3

Actually no. If you just left your babies out in the cold (or to fend for themselves) and they died then you don't pass on your genes. It is an advantage (and I think it is genetic and can be passed from parents to young) to care for the young. Then the young grow up to pass on their genes and the species continues.

Genetically speaking when you reach menopause you are no longer contributing to the gene pool. Also try to remember that the theory of evolution concentrates on populations, not individuals.

Also I don't think it is a good idea to look at the theory of evolution from that standpoint. That is where 'Social Darwinism' came from and was a monstrous and foolish misapplication of the concepts of the theory.

Answer 4

Darwin didn't know what a gene was exactly. He only knew traits were passed down, but didn't know how. And you have only reproduced, but the baby is not an exact copy of you. So, no would be the answer.

Answer 5

I'll have to read Darwin's original work some day to see what he actually said. I don't know if he knew anything about genes, just that he saw traits that were passed down.

As for later views on genetics you have K and R selectionists. Not sure which was which. One would have as many young as possible and leave them. This would be represented by insects for example. Others have few young and keep them with them for a long time to get them to maturity.

This is the human model -in our more complex society this may mean more than just getting them to live to reproductive age (12-13 years) -we really need to nurture them until they are able to survive as well -which may mean an education as well.

This has led to the concept of memetic inheritence. Where you pass on memes -i.e ideas. You can pass these ideas onto your offspring by teaching them yourself or by getting other whom you agree with to educate them.

Perhaps this is the more imporant inheritence in this day and age. Pass onto your children memes that you believe in, memes that will allow them to survive; memes that can be passed on to future generations.

Passing on a good set of memes can take a lifetime. And to do it right may mean having fewer children and investing more time and energy into fewer offspring to educate and train them for the future.

Answer 6

First of all, your child only has half your genes, so your aren't redundant yet.

Second, for you to produce as many children (pass on as many genes) as possible, you also need to make sure they survive long enough to reproduce themselves.

In animals that lay millions of eggs, sheer numbers help, but in humans who are pretty limited, nurturing the young till they can take care of themselves or finding some sucker (see cuckoo bird) to do it for you is more important.

Answer 7

No, because you have still the capacity to reproduce/send out more genetic material. All your offspring (and everyone elses) will be subject to the same selection pressures. The more children you have, the more likely that your genetic material will survive these pressures and go on to reproduce in the next generation. So, Darwin would probably advise you getting back to buisness and cranking out another child before you lose the capacity of doing so.

Additionally, nuturing your child is another way of making them stronger and healthier. If you weren't around to do that, they would likely fail (evolutionarily). You need to give your child every advantage to survive until they reproduce (and beyond). Thus, you still have purpose - probably until your death.

Answer 8

No - you still have to bring it safely to maturity so it can pass on it's genes too....And you should probably have a few more to maximise the chances of the genetic material surviving! No, don't worry - you ain't redundant yet!

Answer 9

Darwin's phrase 'survival of the fittest' uses the word fittest in a reproductive sense, meaning 'maximising an individuals reproductive success', not in the sense of being fit in, say jogging or cycling or something like this. So in this sense you have not maximised your genetic fitness. Someone who has had, say, 20 children is much more genetically fit than you, and his genes are more likely to survice than yours - survival of the fittest.

Answer 10

According to Darwin the successful types out breed their contemporaries.