3 ms·
Evolution isn't a moral theory. Evolution only makes predictions about reality, it doesn't tell you what is more moral or what you should do
by lalaland1125 4y ago
Evolution isn't a moral theory.
Evolution only makes predictions about reality, it doesn't tell you what is more moral or what you should do
- klipt 4y agoSure, but it's literally the definition of evolutionary fitness that having more kids makes you more evolutionarily fit. Nobody said fitness implies morality. But the Amish by definition have higher evolutionary fitness than average Americans.
- jb_gericke 4y agoI think the greater human population is doing just fine - almost exclusively due to scientific and technological advancements. (https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/why-has-the-world-population-grown-so-much-in-the-past-century https://lighthouse.mq.edu.au/article/why-has-the-world-popul...)
- tresqotheq 4y ago> scientific and technological advancements. sure, it does not matter that things that we pay for and consume ends up having a million things that makes us sick in multiple ways, and if you are in some developing nation, you would be hard pressed to find food to feed your babies that is not laced with some kind of harmful pesticides or fertilizer, but hey, we can always pay more in healthcare to extend our diseased misery. We are doing just fine, in the mean while, there are more and more existential threats as the day progress, but hey, say it with me, we are JUST.DOING.FINE.
- poser-boy 4y agoMost countries (including those outside the west) are falling, or have fallen below replacement rate. If we extrapolate this over the next few decades, and accept the conclusion that more technology = less children, and we can expect to see more technology in the future. Almost no new children will be born from within these high-tech societies, we will have to rely on immigration from Africa (the only place where replacement rate is high), and low-tech traditional religious societies. What good is technology in this future scenario?
- kwhitefoot 4y agoPeople still have children and most countries do not need to be any more crowded than they are already. In fact many countries would benefit from having a lower population density. Technology has already replaced most agricultural workers in most developed countries and I can't imagine anyone wanting to return to pre-industrial agriculture.
- darebak 4y ago100 present day South Koreans will have 6 great-grandchildren total. That's an extinction level event. Ofcourse if the current trends continue.
- falcor84 4y agoIt's only extinction if you extrapolate this continuing over many generations, but of course every generation reevaluates their priorities
- Alt-F4 4y agoWow, interesting. Though my math comes out to 6.64 (== 100*(.5*0.81)**3). https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220223000644 https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20220223000644
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- croes 4y agoNope, more children doesn't mean more evolutionary fit. More kids surviving does and on that part the Amish benefit from technology because they can and some do to seek medical help if it's necessary.
- barry-cotter 4y agoEnough food, clean water and knowledge of germ theory does most of the work there. New England has higher rates of natural increase for most of two centuries without benefit of modern medicine, as did Quebec.
- kwhitefoot 4y agoIt only works for the Amish because they are a tiny minority in a larger society that supports, or at least tolerates, them and their lifestyle. If they become dominant or even merely competitive with the larger society then there will be conflict.