Darwin and Dawkins

Just had a discussion which brings out an old and seemingly facetious point which has rather more depth to it than I once thought.

If Darwin is correct then spreading our species is the "goal" of life. If Dawkins is correct then it is our genes which are playing this game.

But in either it leads to having lots of well looked after children - as they are the vehicles of "our" genes.

Some might argue that not having any children ourselves but supporting "althruistic" individuals to make sure that "alturistic" genes do well is the same thing. But then a cheat who cleverly pretends to be alturistic will get the support that was due the "real" genes and so do rather better than they should. An equilibrium will be set up between the two variants etc etc. Dawkin's Green Beard hypothesis etc etc.

However in Dawkin's case (unlike Darwins) it is hard to see how he has actually achieved in siring or helping his own gene pool?

Even Hugh Heffner (who became the discussion) hasn't had an inordinate number of children. Many of the most "successful" Alpha males in the society actually have very few children and it is hard to see how they support "their" genes in the wider population either.

Though thinking this out - maybe selecting for "business" orientated individual from a "general" breeding stock and then giving them high salaries and status effectively selects for the "business" genes and makes them do better in the next generation. Not that they have more children, but that any such genes that occur in the population get supported. Need to think through properly some day...