3 ms·

Here is a more fun question: What is the optimal reproductive strategy that also maximizes the chance that the children also reproduce? I will add as an establi

by belorn 6y ago

Here is a more fun question: What is the optimal reproductive strategy that also maximizes the chance that the children also reproduce? I will add as an established fact that daughters has a higher base chance of reproductive success than sons, but sons have higher base variance. Game theory should always be asked when biology is involved. I am not sure myself on the answer, but it seems more plausible than the article's "teenage girls are annoying" theory or the speculated "son preference" theory. If there is an optimal strategy, such a strategy may result in a small biological effect which makes parents look for a new chance of reproduction once the majority of child investment is done, resulting in the statistical data that shows 20.12% becoming 20.48%.

blabitty 6y ago
Not being snarky at all but isn't the answer to this always going to reduce to "have as many offspring with as many partners as possible"?
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  Maybe not? It doesn't much matter if you have a lot of offspring, if the offspring don't survive and reproduce. It's an optimization problem of having enough offspring and being able to ensure that they survive to adulthood.
  - alexvoda 6y ago
    The key is to apply the strategy of the cookoo bird and have others care for your offspring out of their own interest. I remembered a case of of a obstetrician impregnating multiple patients but a Google search(1) easily proved this was not an isolated case as the first few links are all separate incidents. (1) https://www.google.com/search?q=obstetrician+used+own+sperm https://www.google.com/search?q=obstetrician+used+own+sperm As immoral as this strategy sounds I admit it is probably the most effective strategy from an investment/returns pov. It is cheaper than becoming Genghis Khan(2) and the effect is comparable. (2) https://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-has-competition-1.16767 https://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-ha...
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  The only people who can historically get away with that are high status men (less so women, since child bearing is intrinsically metabolically and temporally expensive). Globally/long run, it's not a great strategy, certainly not compatible with modern ideas of liberty.
- belorn 6y ago
  If that would be true then there would not exist any pair bonding species, and there is some excellent benefits from it. Two parents mean one backup while raising the children, and two parents is double the parenting. Two parents also give some potential benefits with twins, something which pair bonding species tend to have a lot of while non-pair bonding species don't. The primary argument in favor of pair-bonding is that having a lot of offspring that don't reproduce is worse than having a few that do. Humans with our great variations of behaviors has both pair bonding behavior and non-pair bonding behavior, with genes that code for both. If one strategy was always superior to the other then we would have settled for it a long time ago. (Its a law or something when talking about genes that the behavior is always a gene-enivorment interaction, and there are likely many more factors that influence pair bonding behavior).
- garbagetime 6y ago
  If life gets easier and easier (e.g. government guarantees housing, income, education, etc.) then I can see that becoming nearer the truth.
mattkrause 6y ago
A good starting point for this idea is "r/K selection theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory "R-selectors" have many offspring, investing fairly litle in each one. K-selectors have a few offspring, but invest a lot of time/resources in caring for each. There's a bit more to it than that--and the theory has needed some adjustment, but...

by belorn 6y ago

blabitty 6y ago

Not being snarky at all but isn't the answer to this always going to reduce to "have as many offspring with as many partners as possible"?

throwawayboise 6y ago
Maybe not? It doesn't much matter if you have a lot of offspring, if the offspring don't survive and reproduce. It's an optimization problem of having enough offspring and being able to ensure that they survive to adulthood.
- alexvoda 6y ago
  The key is to apply the strategy of the cookoo bird and have others care for your offspring out of their own interest. I remembered a case of of a obstetrician impregnating multiple patients but a Google search(1) easily proved this was not an isolated case as the first few links are all separate incidents. (1) https://www.google.com/search?q=obstetrician+used+own+sperm https://www.google.com/search?q=obstetrician+used+own+sperm As immoral as this strategy sounds I admit it is probably the most effective strategy from an investment/returns pov. It is cheaper than becoming Genghis Khan(2) and the effect is comparable. (2) https://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-has-competition-1.16767 https://www.nature.com/news/genghis-khan-s-genetic-legacy-ha...
andrewflnr 6y ago
The only people who can historically get away with that are high status men (less so women, since child bearing is intrinsically metabolically and temporally expensive). Globally/long run, it's not a great strategy, certainly not compatible with modern ideas of liberty.
belorn 6y ago
If that would be true then there would not exist any pair bonding species, and there is some excellent benefits from it. Two parents mean one backup while raising the children, and two parents is double the parenting. Two parents also give some potential benefits with twins, something which pair bonding species tend to have a lot of while non-pair bonding species don't. The primary argument in favor of pair-bonding is that having a lot of offspring that don't reproduce is worse than having a few that do. Humans with our great variations of behaviors has both pair bonding behavior and non-pair bonding behavior, with genes that code for both. If one strategy was always superior to the other then we would have settled for it a long time ago. (Its a law or something when talking about genes that the behavior is always a gene-enivorment interaction, and there are likely many more factors that influence pair bonding behavior).
garbagetime 6y ago
If life gets easier and easier (e.g. government guarantees housing, income, education, etc.) then I can see that becoming nearer the truth.

mattkrause 6y ago

A good starting point for this idea is "r/K selection theory": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory "R-selectors" have many offspring, investing fairly litle in each one. K-selectors have a few offspring, but invest a lot of time/resources in caring for each. There's a bit more to it than that--and the theory has needed some adjustment, but...