4 ms·

> Since it is still the case that those with more money (on average) have more reproductive opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc. That's ni

> Since it is still the case that those with more money (on average) have more reproductive opportunities, get better medical care, live longer, etc. That's nice. Financially secure people tend to have way less children then the working class/poor. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce.

mindcrime 11y ago
Financially secure people tend to have way less children That's a fair point, but then we also have to ask "do they have fitter children in turn"? Sexual selection would suggest that more fit individuals seek out and mate with other more fit individuals, as each tries to maximize the fitness of the vessel carrying their genes. If that's the case, I wonder what the effect of that is, carried over multiple generations. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I really don't have an answer, but it's worth pondering. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce. Just living long enough isn't enough, you also have to be able to attract a mate to reproduce with. I suspect it is the case that in modern times, sexual selection is more of a factor in human evolution than survival selection. Nonetheless, you guys do make a good point about the wealthy/educated having less children. We humans have complicated things by creating things like birth control and by evolving our thinking minds which (in theory) allow us to override the imperative of our "selfish" genes. :-)
- pharrington 11y ago
  I think it's really, really easy to have sex. Like, be young or/and drunk, and it will happen by accident. But the part that's not opinion is that once sex is in play, birth control requires additional energy and resources that positively affect those with less social power. e: i think i meant to say birth control (evolutionarily) negatively affects those with more social power
- im3w1l 11y ago
  Ugly loser bores may not be able to attract funny successful beauties. But they can still attract each other.
whoopdedo 11y ago
But is this a new thing? Or unique to humans? I'd think if humans in a stable, wealthy community today have fewer children than those in a high-risk community then perhaps early humans who were living in a comfortable environment also had fewer children than those who were fighting against predators and famine. We should be able to find other species populations that exhibit the same relationship between infant mortality and frequency of birth.

mindcrime 11y ago

Financially secure people tend to have way less children That's a fair point, but then we also have to ask "do they have fitter children in turn"? Sexual selection would suggest that more fit individuals seek out and mate with other more fit individuals, as each tries to maximize the fitness of the vessel carrying their genes. If that's the case, I wonder what the effect of that is, carried over multiple generations. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I really don't have an answer, but it's worth pondering. Remember, viable offspring is that which lives long enough to reproduce. Just living long enough isn't enough, you also have to be able to attract a mate to reproduce with. I suspect it is the case that in modern times, sexual selection is more of a factor in human evolution than survival selection. Nonetheless, you guys do make a good point about the wealthy/educated having less children. We humans have complicated things by creating things like birth control and by evolving our thinking minds which (in theory) allow us to override the imperative of our "selfish" genes. :-)

pharrington 11y ago
I think it's really, really easy to have sex. Like, be young or/and drunk, and it will happen by accident. But the part that's not opinion is that once sex is in play, birth control requires additional energy and resources that positively affect those with less social power. e: i think i meant to say birth control (evolutionarily) negatively affects those with more social power
im3w1l 11y ago
Ugly loser bores may not be able to attract funny successful beauties. But they can still attract each other.

whoopdedo 11y ago

But is this a new thing? Or unique to humans? I'd think if humans in a stable, wealthy community today have fewer children than those in a high-risk community then perhaps early humans who were living in a comfortable environment also had fewer children than those who were fighting against predators and famine. We should be able to find other species populations that exhibit the same relationship between infant mortality and frequency of birth.