3 ms·

> 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

> 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...
    - raducu 7y ago
      Would raising children in Africa fit "modern standards"? The guys story seems fictitious at best and there is no chance he actually had sex with two women a day and impregnated one woman a day. The random chanches of conception for unprotectected sex between two young people is 1 in 20.
      - xamuel 7y ago
        You're implicitly assuming each woman only had one single encounter with the guy.

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...
  - raducu 7y ago
    Would raising children in Africa fit "modern standards"? The guys story seems fictitious at best and there is no chance he actually had sex with two women a day and impregnated one woman a day. The random chanches of conception for unprotectected sex between two young people is 1 in 20.
    - xamuel 7y ago
      You're implicitly assuming each woman only had one single encounter with the guy.