4 ms·

We are witnessing evolution in action. Most humans are genetically unfit for modern life. That is, their fertility drops below replacement level when they grow

We are witnessing evolution in action. Most humans are genetically unfit for modern life. That is, their fertility drops below replacement level when they grow up in a developed country. But some humans seem to be immune to the reproductive trap of modern life, and they take advantage of the abundance available in developed countries to have lots of children. These people will make up the future of post second demographic transition[1] humanity. It seems like a lot of these people are incredibly religious (Amish, Haredi, Hutterites, Mennonites). But perhaps there are non-religious people in this group as well. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition#Second_demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition#Second_...

reddytowns 10y ago
It depends... if technology evolves fast enough, it could satiate human desires to the extent that even the people with the most extreme instincts to breed will lose interest. Evolution often can't work fast enough to thwart the pace of technology.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  This is true. I don't think it is a coincidence that most of the religious groups I mentioned (Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, and Haredi) have a very cautious stance toward new technology. Whether they can keep it up indefinitely is another question, though the Amish have been outbreeding the surrounding civilization at a 12x rate for about 100 years, during which most of what we call modern life was invented (mass personal transportation, most recreational drugs, TV, the Internet, mobile phones, etc.).
  - ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
    And yet demographically they are insignificant.
    - toasterlovin 10y ago
      Exponential growth has a way of catching up with negative growth...
    - sevensor 10y ago
      Not where I live they're not. Lots of buggies in central PA.
aminok 10y ago
I dont think it's quite that simple. Quality matters. Having fewer, wealthier kids can be an evolutionarily superior strategy, given the greater future potential of higher quality offspring surviving cataclysms and being the founders of new populations (e.g. a Mars habitat). My only concern is welfarism, where modern political dogma insists that everyone must have equal income, irrespective of the personal investment they and their parents put into their developing their productivity.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  Quality matters to a certain degree, but I would argue that it stops mattering well before the point at which you reach sub-replacement fertility.
ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
If all religion is good for is winning the population war against non believers, then religion (and the people who view it as a way to take over the world demographically) are a colossal piece of shit. Anyways, the conservative (in general) view that the ultra religious will outbreed us heretics has been around for ages. A lot of those groups you mention are rather small, and in the grand scheme of things, its uncertain whether or not mainstream conservative Christians who have above replacement levels of children, whether or not those children continue as adults to be uber religious.
- toasterlovin 10y ago
  My point was more that there is a huge genetic selection event ongoing in the developed world. The genetic fitness landscape has changed as a result of modernity and people who somehow manage to have a bunch of kids despite living in developed countries carry the genes that are currently being selected for. Regarding religious people though: religiosity is a heritable trait. Not perfectly heritable, but heritable nonetheless. So if religious people have above replacement fertility and secular people don't, then the religiosity of the population as a whole should shift upward over time. It might take a long time, but that would seem to be the implication.

reddytowns 10y ago

It depends... if technology evolves fast enough, it could satiate human desires to the extent that even the people with the most extreme instincts to breed will lose interest. Evolution often can't work fast enough to thwart the pace of technology.

toasterlovin 10y ago
This is true. I don't think it is a coincidence that most of the religious groups I mentioned (Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, and Haredi) have a very cautious stance toward new technology. Whether they can keep it up indefinitely is another question, though the Amish have been outbreeding the surrounding civilization at a 12x rate for about 100 years, during which most of what we call modern life was invented (mass personal transportation, most recreational drugs, TV, the Internet, mobile phones, etc.).
- ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
  And yet demographically they are insignificant.
  - toasterlovin 10y ago
    Exponential growth has a way of catching up with negative growth...
  - sevensor 10y ago
    Not where I live they're not. Lots of buggies in central PA.

aminok 10y ago

I dont think it's quite that simple. Quality matters. Having fewer, wealthier kids can be an evolutionarily superior strategy, given the greater future potential of higher quality offspring surviving cataclysms and being the founders of new populations (e.g. a Mars habitat). My only concern is welfarism, where modern political dogma insists that everyone must have equal income, irrespective of the personal investment they and their parents put into their developing their productivity.

toasterlovin 10y ago
Quality matters to a certain degree, but I would argue that it stops mattering well before the point at which you reach sub-replacement fertility.

ZanyProgrammer 10y ago

If all religion is good for is winning the population war against non believers, then religion (and the people who view it as a way to take over the world demographically) are a colossal piece of shit. Anyways, the conservative (in general) view that the ultra religious will outbreed us heretics has been around for ages. A lot of those groups you mention are rather small, and in the grand scheme of things, its uncertain whether or not mainstream conservative Christians who have above replacement levels of children, whether or not those children continue as adults to be uber religious.

toasterlovin 10y ago
My point was more that there is a huge genetic selection event ongoing in the developed world. The genetic fitness landscape has changed as a result of modernity and people who somehow manage to have a bunch of kids despite living in developed countries carry the genes that are currently being selected for. Regarding religious people though: religiosity is a heritable trait. Not perfectly heritable, but heritable nonetheless. So if religious people have above replacement fertility and secular people don't, then the religiosity of the population as a whole should shift upward over time. It might take a long time, but that would seem to be the implication.