3 ms·

You assume that birth rate differences between cultures are stable, which they have never been. But for sure it's a racist trope to somehow assume "certain cult

You assume that birth rate differences between cultures are stable, which they have never been. But for sure it's a racist trope to somehow assume "certain cultures" reproduce like bunnies just because whatever, and "replace us within 3-5 generations". Neither the data nor the math makes sense on this. It's not even genetic variation. Of course there could be genetic variation to reproductive success, but this variation hasn't magically and neatly assorted itself into nationalities or religions in the past few centuries for our convenience. Fact is that the absence of Human suffering, side effects of wealth and freedom, seem to decrease birth rates overall. No religious fanaticism will overcome this mechanism long enough to matter.

jerf 6y ago
The "cultures" need have nothing to do with race or religion or anything else. They simply need to reproduce incrementally more. That can be the distinction, all on its own. Remember, evolution is not generally a game of "One day, this horse was born with a mutation that enabled it to use oxygen seven times more efficiently than its brothers." It's often a game of very small incremental differences slowly outcompeting the competition slowly over many generations. A 2.1 birth rate will outcompete a 1.9 birth rate really quite quickly. It doesn't take much difference. This is just standard evolutionary math, not some crazy conspiracy theory. It may help everyone involved to remember we aren't really talking about humans. It is a a bit of a crazy idea to assume that every species in the universe will all 100% experience the same effects humanity happens to where as they become prosperous, they tend to have fewer children. In fact, I've seriously floated that as one of the possible reasons why humanity may actually survive where many of our competition can't. If you consider something like an insect-like species, they may not even be able to get this far without choking out their planet because they may be quite unsuited to "reproducing less in the face of more resources". Human babies are very expensive; it is not at all clear that this will be a universal among intelligent species. I stripped out the comments about humans since it is distracting people from my main point.
- bayesian_horse 6y ago
  Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future. They aren't stable right now and haven't ever been. A foolish assumption, but useful for certain world views. And as those relative differences change and even invert in some cases, there really is no case to make for the idea that this supposed evolutionary effect could reverse what we are actually seeing in the real data.
  - jerf 6y ago
    'Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future.' I have no idea what you are talking about. No such stability is required. No such stability exists in nature, yet evolution persists, right? The completely standard predator-prey recursive relationship intrinsically involves highly variable (successful) reproductive rates in a constantly oscillating relationship, but I don't hear anyone suggest that disproves evolution. To be honest, if either of us are assuming constant situations that never change forever into the future, it really seems to be you. My entire point is based on variances. I'm arguing against the proposition that no intelligent species will ever spread across the universe because early 21st century humanity in the first world seems to not particularly be interested in it today. Again, the discussion here is integrated across all possible intelligent species, not "humanity". It only takes one species to uncontrollably reproduce to spread across the cosmos. Science fiction is replete with possible such species. Does the HN gestalt not frequently remind people that aliens can be actually, you know, alien? Not just humans with funny foreheads? Even Elon Musk might quibble with the idea that nobody in the first world in the 21st century wants to spread across the stars. If Mars were to build a self-sustaining habitat (which I define as a habitat able to build another equally-self-sustaining habitat), it doesn't matter whether there's 12 billion people on Earth uninterested in spreading out into the solar system, if Mars starts building and growing and spreading further. It only takes a few. It would then not further matter if they build a self-sustaining asteroid-based civilization if all the people on Mars decide they've got it made, and nobody ever again leaves Mars. I say the argument that 0.0000000000000000000000% of a species ever wants to spread out into the stars once they have the capacity, just because we happen to live in a couple of decades where most people (not even all, just most) wouldn't be interested in it is not a sensible one. It's parochial even on human terms; it's beyond parochial across the set of all possible intelligent beings.

jerf 6y ago

The "cultures" need have nothing to do with race or religion or anything else. They simply need to reproduce incrementally more. That can be the distinction, all on its own. Remember, evolution is not generally a game of "One day, this horse was born with a mutation that enabled it to use oxygen seven times more efficiently than its brothers." It's often a game of very small incremental differences slowly outcompeting the competition slowly over many generations. A 2.1 birth rate will outcompete a 1.9 birth rate really quite quickly. It doesn't take much difference. This is just standard evolutionary math, not some crazy conspiracy theory. It may help everyone involved to remember we aren't really talking about humans. It is a a bit of a crazy idea to assume that every species in the universe will all 100% experience the same effects humanity happens to where as they become prosperous, they tend to have fewer children. In fact, I've seriously floated that as one of the possible reasons why humanity may actually survive where many of our competition can't. If you consider something like an insect-like species, they may not even be able to get this far without choking out their planet because they may be quite unsuited to "reproducing less in the face of more resources". Human babies are very expensive; it is not at all clear that this will be a universal among intelligent species. I stripped out the comments about humans since it is distracting people from my main point.

bayesian_horse 6y ago
Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future. They aren't stable right now and haven't ever been. A foolish assumption, but useful for certain world views. And as those relative differences change and even invert in some cases, there really is no case to make for the idea that this supposed evolutionary effect could reverse what we are actually seeing in the real data.
- jerf 6y ago
  'Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future.' I have no idea what you are talking about. No such stability is required. No such stability exists in nature, yet evolution persists, right? The completely standard predator-prey recursive relationship intrinsically involves highly variable (successful) reproductive rates in a constantly oscillating relationship, but I don't hear anyone suggest that disproves evolution. To be honest, if either of us are assuming constant situations that never change forever into the future, it really seems to be you. My entire point is based on variances. I'm arguing against the proposition that no intelligent species will ever spread across the universe because early 21st century humanity in the first world seems to not particularly be interested in it today. Again, the discussion here is integrated across all possible intelligent species, not "humanity". It only takes one species to uncontrollably reproduce to spread across the cosmos. Science fiction is replete with possible such species. Does the HN gestalt not frequently remind people that aliens can be actually, you know, alien? Not just humans with funny foreheads? Even Elon Musk might quibble with the idea that nobody in the first world in the 21st century wants to spread across the stars. If Mars were to build a self-sustaining habitat (which I define as a habitat able to build another equally-self-sustaining habitat), it doesn't matter whether there's 12 billion people on Earth uninterested in spreading out into the solar system, if Mars starts building and growing and spreading further. It only takes a few. It would then not further matter if they build a self-sustaining asteroid-based civilization if all the people on Mars decide they've got it made, and nobody ever again leaves Mars. I say the argument that 0.0000000000000000000000% of a species ever wants to spread out into the stars once they have the capacity, just because we happen to live in a couple of decades where most people (not even all, just most) wouldn't be interested in it is not a sensible one. It's parochial even on human terms; it's beyond parochial across the set of all possible intelligent beings.