Gene Hunn wrote:

>The only problem arises if the "playboy" and "playgirl" genes are so
>successful that neither sex takes care of the kids. The opposed strategy of
>loyalty to one's mate and investment in the care of one's offspring
>(quite certain for females, less so for males) has clearly provided
>superior genetic payoffs on average for many birds (and for humans, for
>that matter).

Ah, but that's the point of what I was writing. A male bird can be a very
effective parent, feeding and protecting its young with its full-time mate,
and still pass on genes in additional ways. A female parent can be the
same and still have offspring with better genes because she allows or
encourages copulation with a male not her mate. In neither case is
parenting reduced.

Gene again:

>The problem in using
>these rather cute anthropomorphic scenarios is that they tend to be used
>by humans to justify whatever course of action they happen to have chosen
>themselves without appreciating that there are many ways to play the game
>successfully with success depending on a complex of factors one cannot
>always control....

There's no question that the biggest thing to avoid is using sociobiology
or evolutionary psychology to rationalize not-so-benign human behavior.
All of the people who have written responsibly about human behavior have
stressed this. *Understanding* behavior patterns, which no one can deny
that we must do, in no way implies *condoning* them if they are against our
social contracts.

There goes another megadeluge outside, just started. I'm moving to Arizona.....

Dennis Paulson phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416