>> there are a lot of organisms where they've evolved to have a large percentage of the population not reproduce, yet are absolutely vital to the species
>It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
I don't think so. Perhaps it is less rational to apply this reasoning to the ability of a society to produce warriors (i.e. abundance of young males) but more so in philosophy, science, ideas, inventions, and thought. So long as these evolutions of thought are not lost to time (and they are far more fragile than genetics which sex is the only communication required) then it can be argued that they often times have a far greater impact on the human species as a whole than the passing of any certain genes over others. [1]
Humans are remarkable and unique in regards to this in the animal kingdom as far as we (humans) can tell.
>It sounds like post-hoc rationalizing to apply this logic to humans.
I don't think so. Perhaps it is less rational to apply this reasoning to the ability of a society to produce warriors (i.e. abundance of young males) but more so in philosophy, science, ideas, inventions, and thought. So long as these evolutions of thought are not lost to time (and they are far more fragile than genetics which sex is the only communication required) then it can be argued that they often times have a far greater impact on the human species as a whole than the passing of any certain genes over others. [1]
Humans are remarkable and unique in regards to this in the animal kingdom as far as we (humans) can tell.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates