3 ms·

I have a rough, reaching hypothesis about the rise of incel, MGTOW, Hikikomori and FDS that hinges on a number of socio-economic, technological and population f

I have a rough, reaching hypothesis about the rise of incel, MGTOW, Hikikomori and FDS that hinges on a number of socio-economic, technological and population factors. Attitudes and lifestyle choices are "soft" means of reducing an individual's procreation to reduce over-population, whereas "hard" means such as famines, war, mass shootings, taking away healthcare and genocide are the more painful means to reduce numbers. The inflection point of global population happened somewhere around 1962-1965 when it went from concave up (growth phase) to concave down (slowing phase). Population still continued to increase in many parts of the world, but it's the rate of change that slowed. In many ways, overall population is best modeled by a different equation, but the carrying capacity is variable including place-to-place, time, technology, food, economic and political concerns. Even though population slowed, it still kept increasing. With a larger population, resource scarcity plus labor over-supply increased in first-world countries and so the ability to start families decreased. People who are relatively rich have an easier time having children than most people when the average purchasing power and average income is reduced. More inequality + more access to reproductive services -> fewer families -> fewer children. The sexual revolution and The Pill happened around this time, increasing the number of divorces and reducing the number of formed family units. (Birth control isn't anything new, as Silphium was a cash-crop in the ancient world that was harvested to its extinction.) Delaying marriage also reduces the number of births. It was the case in the 19th century that girls were having children at 15-16 through their late 20's, so family sizes were on the order of 6-10 children per couple. One point that goes against the trend is modern divorce (with a prenup and in a non-community property state) allows a high-income earning man to start multiple families serially. Women gained more access to the means of income earning, removing dependency on men. As such, many women's time and priorities were taken-up by work, and so starting a family was no longer a primary motivation. Alternative lifestyle became more acceptable as population increased. The previous modality forced some people who were uncomfortable with heterosexuality to have families and children, but who wouldn't have passed on their genes to a new generation in the new modality. Furthermore, individuals in the modern era, not necessarily for sexual or gender reasons, adopted new and various subsets of lifestyles that also reduced and limited their reproductive success. In conclusion, I think it's important for any wise person to not capriciously lash their identity to a random cult, external attribute or way that contains a lot of negative, judgmental/stereotypes or arbitrary "rules," and to use some common-sense, nuance and love rather that bitterness, scorn or hate.

heartbeats 7y ago
Won't natural selection take care of this within a few generations? The 'career women' and 'divorcee' genes get heavily selected against, and those with religiosity get heavily selected for. We already see this in some Western countries where Muslims have much higher birth rates. Also in the US, we have the Mormons. If this development continues, it is not unlikely to see a return to historical, more efficient, social norms.
- throwaway41968 7y ago
  Ah yes, the famously identified "career women" and "divorcee" genes with well-known genetic pathways.
  - heartbeats 7y ago
    Yes, everything is genetic. Can't speak for divorcees, but the career women I've met have generally been more 'masculine', so to speak. We know that 2D:4D is genetic and has a strong correlation with leadership ability, so it wouldn't surprise me that such could come to be selected against in women. Religiosity is genetic, and that has quite strong effects on fertility.
    - throwaway41968 7y ago
      I don't think genetic means what you think it does. In the field of genetics, a trait is said to be genetic when a genetic mechanism has been identified leading to the expression of that trait. Please, tell me more about the genetic mechanism behind religiosity, let alone 'everything'. Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are influenced?
      - econcon 7y ago
        >Please, tell me more about the genetic mechanism behind religiosity, let alone 'everything'. Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are influenced I've seen people here claiming that Asians are more conformists they've been selected for conformity from the time where your books were burnt if they were not allowed by the Chinese empire. >Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are influenced? We know tall stature is genetic trait and we've many genes which correlate to tall strature. We don't know pathway which causes tall structure. So can you tell me which pathway makes a person tall? Should we stop believing tall strature is a genetic trait even if partially? Similarly, there are gay or transexual people - we don't know pathway, are you going to claim that its cultural? There are many gay in Muslim countries or India where they were not socially accepted for long time. There have been experiments on mouse where when they injected q mouse with testosterone, they became more dominant and fought more fiercely against the bully. Similarly, there are accounts of trans people who went from female to male - and became more competitive, aggressive, dominant. It's not far fetched to think there are hormones which turn depend on genes or environment which make a person more "individualistic" In psychology, we know of this disorder Borderline Personality Disorder which sometimes is genetic and sometimes not. It's a very individualistic disorder and person suffering from it finds it hard to keep meaningful relationships for long term. We don't know if it's caused by hormonal imbalance or genetics or some brain anomaly. Similarly, depression is contender for genetic trait yet we don't know any pathway. So what's my point? Asking for specific genes or pathway is not going to invalidate the hypothesis that a particular personality trait might have genetic basis

heartbeats 7y ago

Won't natural selection take care of this within a few generations? The 'career women' and 'divorcee' genes get heavily selected against, and those with religiosity get heavily selected for. We already see this in some Western countries where Muslims have much higher birth rates. Also in the US, we have the Mormons. If this development continues, it is not unlikely to see a return to historical, more efficient, social norms.

throwaway41968 7y ago
Ah yes, the famously identified "career women" and "divorcee" genes with well-known genetic pathways.
- heartbeats 7y ago
  Yes, everything is genetic. Can't speak for divorcees, but the career women I've met have generally been more 'masculine', so to speak. We know that 2D:4D is genetic and has a strong correlation with leadership ability, so it wouldn't surprise me that such could come to be selected against in women. Religiosity is genetic, and that has quite strong effects on fertility.
  - throwaway41968 7y ago
    I don't think genetic means what you think it does. In the field of genetics, a trait is said to be genetic when a genetic mechanism has been identified leading to the expression of that trait. Please, tell me more about the genetic mechanism behind religiosity, let alone 'everything'. Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are influenced?
    - econcon 7y ago
      >Please, tell me more about the genetic mechanism behind religiosity, let alone 'everything'. Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are influenced I've seen people here claiming that Asians are more conformists they've been selected for conformity from the time where your books were burnt if they were not allowed by the Chinese empire. >Which genes are involved, how does the epitaxis play out, which pathways are influenced? We know tall stature is genetic trait and we've many genes which correlate to tall strature. We don't know pathway which causes tall structure. So can you tell me which pathway makes a person tall? Should we stop believing tall strature is a genetic trait even if partially? Similarly, there are gay or transexual people - we don't know pathway, are you going to claim that its cultural? There are many gay in Muslim countries or India where they were not socially accepted for long time. There have been experiments on mouse where when they injected q mouse with testosterone, they became more dominant and fought more fiercely against the bully. Similarly, there are accounts of trans people who went from female to male - and became more competitive, aggressive, dominant. It's not far fetched to think there are hormones which turn depend on genes or environment which make a person more "individualistic" In psychology, we know of this disorder Borderline Personality Disorder which sometimes is genetic and sometimes not. It's a very individualistic disorder and person suffering from it finds it hard to keep meaningful relationships for long term. We don't know if it's caused by hormonal imbalance or genetics or some brain anomaly. Similarly, depression is contender for genetic trait yet we don't know any pathway. So what's my point? Asking for specific genes or pathway is not going to invalidate the hypothesis that a particular personality trait might have genetic basis