3 ms·

> Evolution selects for genes that manage to leave lots of descendants. Nope. Survival selects for genes that have enough descendants. One way to have "enoug

by anamax 15y ago

> Evolution selects for genes that manage to leave lots of descendants. Nope. Survival selects for genes that have enough descendants. One way to have "enough" is "lots", but it doesn't necessarily work and isn't necessary. > In the case of humans, any trait that leads to lots of kids despite economic pressures to have few of them is going to be evolutionarily successful. Nope - lots of kids is neither necessary nor sufficient. The key metric is "do your kids have kids, rinse and repeat." Too many kids can break that, as can too few.

btilly 15y ago
All else being equal, in an environment like our own where survival is easy, generally the more kids the merrier. Modern economics and birth control have created pressures against reproducing that we have never faced in our evolutionary history. Our species has not yet evolved a response to it. Once we have evolved a response to it, I would predict exponential growth rate until we exhaust available resources. This may not happen in 10 generations or 20. But in 1000 generations, our species will have adapted and reached a crisis.
- sedachv 15y ago
  The only way I see of "evolving a response to it" is selecting for baby-crazed women who are basically addicted to the hormonal changes of childbirth and rearing. Men would already be happy to impregnate women as much as possible, if they didn't have to stick around or pay child support. It's hard not to think of Idiocracy.
  - btilly 15y ago
    And you think that selection process is not going on? Anyways there are other possible responses. There is a strong correlation between being religious and having lots of kids. Therefore genes that incline one towards being religious are positively correlated with kids. Another is a trait of failing to worry about future consequences. (Now you'll really be thinking about Idiocracy.) Complex traits like these are part nurture and part nature. But to the extent that they are nature, there is evolutionary pressure for them to spread.

by anamax 15y ago

btilly 15y ago

All else being equal, in an environment like our own where survival is easy, generally the more kids the merrier. Modern economics and birth control have created pressures against reproducing that we have never faced in our evolutionary history. Our species has not yet evolved a response to it. Once we have evolved a response to it, I would predict exponential growth rate until we exhaust available resources. This may not happen in 10 generations or 20. But in 1000 generations, our species will have adapted and reached a crisis.

sedachv 15y ago
The only way I see of "evolving a response to it" is selecting for baby-crazed women who are basically addicted to the hormonal changes of childbirth and rearing. Men would already be happy to impregnate women as much as possible, if they didn't have to stick around or pay child support. It's hard not to think of Idiocracy.
- btilly 15y ago
  And you think that selection process is not going on? Anyways there are other possible responses. There is a strong correlation between being religious and having lots of kids. Therefore genes that incline one towards being religious are positively correlated with kids. Another is a trait of failing to worry about future consequences. (Now you'll really be thinking about Idiocracy.) Complex traits like these are part nurture and part nature. But to the extent that they are nature, there is evolutionary pressure for them to spread.