26 ms·

Relevant article [1] and corresponding HN discussion thread [2] Daily reminder that in an evolutionary context, the last 200 years are the blink of an eye. I'

by xamuel 7y ago

Relevant article [1] and corresponding HN discussion thread [2] Daily reminder that in an evolutionary context, the last 200 years are the blink of an eye. I'll paste a comment I made there: "If an antibiotic doesn't wipe out its target, then its target's numbers will be devastated in the short-term, but in the long-term, its target will evolve immunity to the antibiotic and ultimately recover. If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely similar to an antibiotic whose target is human beings. We're still living in the short-term when the antibiotic seems to be effective." [1] "The heritability of fertility makes world population stabilization unlikely in the foreseeable future" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513817302799#bb0180 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109051381... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20360626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20360626

namirez 7y ago
> If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely similar to an antibiotic whose target is human beings. We don't really know that. There are environmental stressors that lead a species to adapt; there are also stressors that cause a species to go extinct. I think time scales are really important here. Bacteria evolve much more rapidly than humans. But the rate of creating new antibiotics and contraceptives are probably in the same ballpark.
- xamuel 7y ago
  The newness of the contraceptives doesn't matter as long as they're still opt-in. No-one's suggesting humans will evolve condom-melting sperm. There's no need: a much easier trait to evolve is the desire to have kids.
  - raducu 7y ago
    But the "desire to have kids" is such and abstract and complex issue; nature already has it figured for us, we have the desire to have sex, to nurture and to like kids is secondary. It would be impossible for nature to evolve such a complex, conscious yet instinct-like feature as "I want to have kids for the sake of kids... right, where do I start... I need a fit SEXUAL partner(so that I have healthy kids)... but just to have kids... totaly not for the pleasure of sex ... economy be damned, I want kids... kids are extremly hard to raise by modern standards... scratch that... I need to have kids no matter what".
    - quotemstr 7y ago
      > It would be impossible for nature to evolve such a complex, conscious yet instinct-like feature as "I want to have kids for the sake of kids.. We have such an instinct now. Women (some men too, I guess) in their 30s frequently attest to a feeling that their "biological clock" is ticking and that they feel a yearning to have kids for the sake of having kids. This desire is probably still secondary to the raw sex drive in humanity, but evolution is great at taking secondary drives and turning them up to 11. Keep in mind also that evolution isn't necessarily genetic. Humanity's unique advantage is culture. We can change our "software" much faster than we can change our genetic "hardware". Some culture groups, e.g., the Mormons and the Amish, already have fertility rates very much above average. As long as fertility is heritable, it doesn't really matter whether the mechanism is genetics or culture: the future belongs to the people who reproduce.
      - raducu 7y ago
        Women have started having children throughout the aeons at a very early age. It is onĺy in the last 80.000 years that humans have made the conscious connection between sex and having children. Womens fertilty declines sharply in their 30' and it is through conscious understanding of that fact and imitation that they think "their biological clock is ticking"; they consciously understand that it is now or never, that all their friends have children and that their looks and chances of attracting mates are fading. Also, I'm willing to bet that people in the "my biological clock was ticking" camp have much, much lower birth rates than average(probably close to 1), which is an indicator rhat they actually felt pressured not to be childless rather than a genuine desire to have childreN. I absolutely agree with your culture argument, I am just claiming that modern culture will go extinct unless we incorporate higher birthrates into it, not that the human species will go extinct.
    - xamuel 7y ago
      >kids are extremely hard to raise by modern standards... Those thoughts don't seem to have been going through this guy's head: https://www.sunnewsonline.com/i-slept-with-1400-girls-impregnated-600-in-6-african-countries-french-tourists-recounts/ https://www.sunnewsonline.com/i-slept-with-1400-girls-impreg...
lallysingh 7y ago
Except that humans are using it on themselves voluntarily. Instead of 'evolve immunity', we could just stop using it.
- raducu 7y ago
  You mean volutarily stop doing it or banning contraceptives? If it's the first, there's absolutely no way that would happen, if it's the latter, what's next, we ban abortions, women working, force people to marry, we ban the pull out method, the calendar(I'm not trying to build a straw man here). A balanced and fair solution to the declining birth rates would be so complex that I'm convinced no human designed system would work; perhaps we could turn ourselves into a AI run perfect human zoo in the future, but as long as humans are in the decision loop I think it is impossible.
raducu 7y ago
But it's not the human species that's at risk(except for some world-ending catastrophe that we cause), it is the modern world ending that is at risk.

by xamuel 7y ago

namirez 7y ago

> If you think about it, contraceptives are extremely similar to an antibiotic whose target is human beings. We don't really know that. There are environmental stressors that lead a species to adapt; there are also stressors that cause a species to go extinct. I think time scales are really important here. Bacteria evolve much more rapidly than humans. But the rate of creating new antibiotics and contraceptives are probably in the same ballpark.

xamuel 7y ago
The newness of the contraceptives doesn't matter as long as they're still opt-in. No-one's suggesting humans will evolve condom-melting sperm. There's no need: a much easier trait to evolve is the desire to have kids.
- raducu 7y ago
  But the "desire to have kids" is such and abstract and complex issue; nature already has it figured for us, we have the desire to have sex, to nurture and to like kids is secondary. It would be impossible for nature to evolve such a complex, conscious yet instinct-like feature as "I want to have kids for the sake of kids... right, where do I start... I need a fit SEXUAL partner(so that I have healthy kids)... but just to have kids... totaly not for the pleasure of sex ... economy be damned, I want kids... kids are extremly hard to raise by modern standards... scratch that... I need to have kids no matter what".
  - quotemstr 7y ago
    > It would be impossible for nature to evolve such a complex, conscious yet instinct-like feature as "I want to have kids for the sake of kids.. We have such an instinct now. Women (some men too, I guess) in their 30s frequently attest to a feeling that their "biological clock" is ticking and that they feel a yearning to have kids for the sake of having kids. This desire is probably still secondary to the raw sex drive in humanity, but evolution is great at taking secondary drives and turning them up to 11. Keep in mind also that evolution isn't necessarily genetic. Humanity's unique advantage is culture. We can change our "software" much faster than we can change our genetic "hardware". Some culture groups, e.g., the Mormons and the Amish, already have fertility rates very much above average. As long as fertility is heritable, it doesn't really matter whether the mechanism is genetics or culture: the future belongs to the people who reproduce.
    - raducu 7y ago
      Women have started having children throughout the aeons at a very early age. It is onĺy in the last 80.000 years that humans have made the conscious connection between sex and having children. Womens fertilty declines sharply in their 30' and it is through conscious understanding of that fact and imitation that they think "their biological clock is ticking"; they consciously understand that it is now or never, that all their friends have children and that their looks and chances of attracting mates are fading. Also, I'm willing to bet that people in the "my biological clock was ticking" camp have much, much lower birth rates than average(probably close to 1), which is an indicator rhat they actually felt pressured not to be childless rather than a genuine desire to have childreN. I absolutely agree with your culture argument, I am just claiming that modern culture will go extinct unless we incorporate higher birthrates into it, not that the human species will go extinct.
  - xamuel 7y ago
    >kids are extremely hard to raise by modern standards... Those thoughts don't seem to have been going through this guy's head: https://www.sunnewsonline.com/i-slept-with-1400-girls-impregnated-600-in-6-african-countries-french-tourists-recounts/ https://www.sunnewsonline.com/i-slept-with-1400-girls-impreg...

lallysingh 7y ago

Except that humans are using it on themselves voluntarily. Instead of 'evolve immunity', we could just stop using it.

raducu 7y ago
You mean volutarily stop doing it or banning contraceptives? If it's the first, there's absolutely no way that would happen, if it's the latter, what's next, we ban abortions, women working, force people to marry, we ban the pull out method, the calendar(I'm not trying to build a straw man here). A balanced and fair solution to the declining birth rates would be so complex that I'm convinced no human designed system would work; perhaps we could turn ourselves into a AI run perfect human zoo in the future, but as long as humans are in the decision loop I think it is impossible.

raducu 7y ago

But it's not the human species that's at risk(except for some world-ending catastrophe that we cause), it is the modern world ending that is at risk.