Interesting thoughts, that present interesting puzzle. Darwinian importance (which stratifies individuals) and personal sense of well being (which we should hope does not) together provide a problem for clinically oriented evolutionary biologists. Even in evolutionary terms these isues of relative importance produce different models from different perspectives. One can, for example, be a direct doner of genes but (in principle) be totally dependent upon a non doner of genes for your genes to do their thing. This is what leads to insuring that at least a small number of the less important (but essential!) non genetic donors hang around for future generations. As I understand it, current models about such tangles are still rather controversial; certainly incomplete. Am I in error?