4 ms·

>Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits. Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I th

>Women would make the choice for who the father would be and would choose only top tier traits. Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits. >...leaving out a vast majority of males. Men would either have no reason to be productive members of society or would become violent. This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?" >Marriage came to be as a way to essentially harness productivity by eliminating most conflict over mates. Uhh I guess, sure I can concede that. >I still think religion as an institution is important because it binds a society together under shared beliefs. I am also agnostic and I agree that religion is important however not for the same reason you do. Yes religions bind societies but only to a certain extent and for only so long. See the conflicts between early Christians and Jews, or the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. Or current extremist Muslims, hell extremists of every religion. As much as religion binds people together it even more so tears people apart.

remarkEon 9y ago
>Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. Because if you're not passing on your genes, who cares. One of the best historical indicators of more violence or unrest in a society is a gender imbalance. Idle males who don't/can't find a partner end up acting out. If you're talking about men higher up the IQ or socioeconomic ladder, then sure they might find happiness or value in life outside of marriage/child-rearing. We encourage people to put off children at our own risk. Edit: This is the paper [1]. The finding: "Gender is a well-established individual-level correlate of crime, and especially violent crime (50). It is a consistent finding across cultures that an overwhelming percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by young, unmarried, low-status males (50–52)." [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/
cmahler7 9y ago
>Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits. Marriage limits a man to one women, IVF would allow one man to impregnate essentially infinite women and other factors like personality wouldn't factor into the OPs nearly anonymous genetic propositioning. >This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?" Yes, look into the studies on young men in the US and Japan who are coasting because they see no reason to work hard. They have video games and are happy. The alternative to apathy is violence. Neither is good for society, apathy leads to lack of progress and violence destroys society https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-threatening-global-stability/ https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-t...
- dr_ 9y ago
  Im not sure there's any correlation between young men who are sitting idle and what I was referring to. There are men who do not have children, some gay men for example, who are highly productive members of society. The selection bias that you indirectly refer to is already happening. And with the availability of ivf, what I am referring to is already happening as well amongst lesbian and gay couples and single educated women who haven't met the right person yet. And what's to stop it? If people who are smart, successful, but haven't found the right mate or don't want to get married, go gamete shopping and find the ideal set of genes, and produce the ideal child - how do other children without these advantages compete against them? My guess is that other potential parents then start going the same route, especially if marriage is on the decline anyhow. I don't think it leads to violence and truthfully it's not something I even condone without further thought.

remarkEon 9y ago

>Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. Because if you're not passing on your genes, who cares. One of the best historical indicators of more violence or unrest in a society is a gender imbalance. Idle males who don't/can't find a partner end up acting out. If you're talking about men higher up the IQ or socioeconomic ladder, then sure they might find happiness or value in life outside of marriage/child-rearing. We encourage people to put off children at our own risk. Edit: This is the paper [1]. The finding: "Gender is a well-established individual-level correlate of crime, and especially violent crime (50). It is a consistent finding across cultures that an overwhelming percentage of violent crime is perpetrated by young, unmarried, low-status males (50–52)." [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569153/

cmahler7 9y ago

>Is the implication here that this is not already the case? I think you are marginalizing the many variable preferences that people have when choosing partners. There is no general set of optimal human traits. Marriage limits a man to one women, IVF would allow one man to impregnate essentially infinite women and other factors like personality wouldn't factor into the OPs nearly anonymous genetic propositioning. >This is very perplexing. Men do a lot more than just make babies, so why then would their productivity disappear if they cant make babies anymore. "Uh, hey ma,n we cant have kids anymore so lets go rioting?" Yes, look into the studies on young men in the US and Japan who are coasting because they see no reason to work hard. They have video games and are happy. The alternative to apathy is violence. Neither is good for society, apathy leads to lack of progress and violence destroys society https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-threatening-global-stability/ https://qz.com/186066/this-lost-generation-of-young-men-is-t...

dr_ 9y ago
Im not sure there's any correlation between young men who are sitting idle and what I was referring to. There are men who do not have children, some gay men for example, who are highly productive members of society. The selection bias that you indirectly refer to is already happening. And with the availability of ivf, what I am referring to is already happening as well amongst lesbian and gay couples and single educated women who haven't met the right person yet. And what's to stop it? If people who are smart, successful, but haven't found the right mate or don't want to get married, go gamete shopping and find the ideal set of genes, and produce the ideal child - how do other children without these advantages compete against them? My guess is that other potential parents then start going the same route, especially if marriage is on the decline anyhow. I don't think it leads to violence and truthfully it's not something I even condone without further thought.