First, let me clarify my point on natural selection. If a person lacks the traits to mate with a certain person of high attractiveness/mating value (which is usually indicative of good child bearing abilities) because of that person's height standards, but LL makes then tall enough to be attractive to that person and mate with her, then the LL patient has effectively out competed all of the men who would have otherwise been the mate of the female in question. Though genes aren't directly involved, you are clearly seeing competition for mates and behavior (LL) affecting its outcome, so that the LL patient's genes are passed on with a desired and probably person whereas they might otherwise not have been. Having your genes instead of another man's inside the offspring of a "high value" woman might ensure longer term survival of your genes than if you'd mated with a less desirable woman without LL. The kids would have your genes and those of the socially valuable woman, and the woman's genes would probably ensure that the children with your genes fare well in the mating game as well since she has many attractive genes, or more than the women that you would theoretically have had without LL. It's a stupid and over simplistic theory, but I thought that it would be fun to throw it out there for the sake of discussion.
Wannabegiant, when did I say that I demanded or deserved the extra benefits that height has on leadership? Nobody deserves anything. Nature is randomness. Order and symmetry amidst this infinite randomness is a large component of beauty. But, back on track. We do the best to live the lives we want to live. Nature doesn't owe us anything and if we don't have it but really want it, we have to get it for ourselves one way or another. If I want something, I'll do my best to get it as long as it doesn't harm others unfairly. Of course justice is quite subjective, but I don't see anything morally wrong with me getting LL at average height. I could buy a car or house, but I'd rather upgrade myself and fix a long-standing insecurity instead of buying a car or house that won't give me nearly the pleasure and confidence that more height would. Call me greedy if you want to, but then call all luxury car buyers, game console buyers, and flat screen TV owners greedy too.
When did I say height automatically makes a person a leader? I didn't. I said that a person of average height has to work harder and do more to be perceived as a leader. I stand by this. What's wrong with trying to change myself to be more easily perceived as a leader and as a desirable, admirable man? Sure I don't need it, but I don't need my nice TV or clothes either. I view height as a much better investment than anything else. It won't just give me benefits, it will cure a long-standing insecurity too. My whole family is tall except for me, and it does kind of make me feel jealous and bitter because everyone in my family gets these benefits that I don't, and I want to feel more like one of them. I feel like my current height conflicts with my inner identity. Soon I'll have the power to change that. Getting taller will be a luxury, but what's wrong with obtaining and enjoying luxuries if you've worked hard enough to obtain then fairly? You yourself talk about wearing nicer clothes than others to increase your value above that of the average 179CM dude. How are you not greedy while I am? I'd say we're both greedy. Humans are innately greedy.
