3 ms·

These articles never mention it, but I do think waifu culture contributes to the issue. I personally never looked for a partner because I'd rather spend more t

• pault 7y ago
  I'm single and 40 and I have no interest in dating because I would 100x rather be in my workshop building keyboards than out meeting people.
  • meruru 7y ago
    Honestly, I feel kinda guilty about it. Shouldn't the people who care so much about their craft that they forgo relationships be precisely the kind that we'd want to preserve the genes of?
    • jeron 7y ago
      evolution hasn't caught up with what are actually good traits in this current society
    • pault 7y ago
      I think about this a lot. It seems that there must be some benefit to society from having certain members contribute but not reproduce. Obviously, from a purely darwinistic point of view, you would think that biological organisms that don't want to reproduce would have been bred out of the gene pool a long time ago. However, to answer your question, your parents had a child that cares intensely about their craft, so maybe it doesn't matter in the long run.
      • meruru 7y ago
        Oh the evolutionary answer is easy. If your parents have a gene that can make you behave in a way that reduces the chance of you reproducing, but changes your behavior in such a way that increases the chance of your kin surviving, then that gene is in good position to spread in the population through your siblings. Of course that doesn't work so well when the average fertility rate is less than 2 children per couple. Also, the same gene can sometimes have a positive and negative effect on your chances of reproducing at the same time. For instance, suppose there's a gene that makes you want to work out instead of have sex. That might just increase your chances more than decrease in an environment where you need strength to survive (or that partners are attracted to that).
      • andygates 7y ago
        That's the evo argument for the "gay uncle" (et al) as a noncompetitive but good to have around person. I'm not sure it's true, but it's a tale as old as at least the 90's.
    • noragami 7y ago
      Do genes really matter all that much? Speaking as a typical armchair expert here. Judging from a few of the latest pop-sci books on heredity, I was under the impression that culture and nurture play a much greater role: high quality medicine, food rich in nutrients, good education available to all. There's an interesting anecdote to support it. When the Soviet Union (with all its faults) was established, it has provided education to much broader masses of the population than ever before. You know how it turned out? When you read the biographies of the many of the brightest academics of the USSR, many of them are descendants of a typical peasant family. Some of their parents weren't able to read or write, had a lot of children, etc. This "genetic handicap" didn't stop them from getting a degree and becoming bright scientists.
      • meruru 7y ago
        How much genes matter vs culture depends on the variance of each of those factors in the sampled population. You aren't going to win a Nobel prize if you are a dog, no matter how top-quality your education. You aren't going to win a Nobel prize if you are a feral child, no matter how high your IQ is. That's how much both culture and genetics matter.
      • dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Do genes really matter all that much? Yes. > Judging from a few of the latest pop-sci books That's not really much better than “judging from my newspaper horoscope”. > I was under the impression that culture and nurture play a much greater role: high quality medicine, food rich in nutrients, good education available to all. Those play a huge role in whether genetic potential will be reached, genetics play a huge role in the actual outcome given similar environment. > When you read the biographies of the many of the brightest academics of the USSR, many of them are descendants of a typical peasant family. Some of their parents weren't able to read or write, had a lot of children, etc. This "genetic handicap" You describe an socioeconomic handicap, not a genetic one, so it doesn't really say anything about the effects of genetics.
    • dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Shouldn't the people who care so much about their craft that they forgo relationships be precisely the kind that we'd want to preserve the genes of? Why? I'd rather preserve the genes of the people who care so much about human relationships that they forego any craft, but neither extreme is really optimal.
      • meruru 7y ago
        I think they are beneficial genes for society. I imagine much of the scientific and technological development of humanity was thanks to obsessive types. Genes that make people form families rather than work in their craft are not exactly in a bad place, so excuse me for not being concerned about them.