8 ms·

Contraceptives are causing the biggest evolutionary pressure mankind has ever faced. Groups like the Amish who want to have kids have a ton while the secular p

Contraceptives are causing the biggest evolutionary pressure mankind has ever faced. Groups like the Amish who want to have kids have a ton while the secular population decreases.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
Also, women’s financial independence and general increase in their freedom. I wonder if Amish women are completely free to decide how many kids they want.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  They probably aren’t, and neither are Amish men.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Men are physically more powerful than women, I think how many children a man wants is much more in the man’s control than how many kids a woman wants.
    - mantas 4y ago
      Woman is the gatekeeper, unless you want include rape-y options. But then the more traditional society is, the child raising is on women. And it’s women who raise next generation of men…
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Yes, I do not think women had complete agency in deciding to have 5+ kids each. Or even 4. And it is probably still the same case for many around the world. Kind of like this scene: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
        mantas 4y ago
        Men are in the same boat if the whole community is focused on raising big families. In traditional communities women do vast majority of children raising. They're essentially gatekeepers of the culture. If the community wanted to reject the culture, women are the ones who can bring forward the change. If they want, of course. Sort of like in western world people have no „complete agency“ to refuse consumerist work/buy/die life. Technically they can, but in reality the society is stacked against that. I'd argue that Amish are even more flexible than mainstream. Amish communities kick out the young to explore the world and then return on your own accord. Is mainstream society willing to kick out the kids to live with amishes or something along those lines? As far as I see, with very few exceptions, it's reinforcing the work/buy/die cycle.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > If the community wanted to reject the culture, women are the ones who can bring forward the change. If they want, of course. How? If they reject it, they then need to go out and find shelter, and food, and income, in a world where they are negotiating with men, more who are all more physically powerful, as well as cognizant of the woman’s lesser negotiating position. I do not know about Amish forcing their young to do non Amish things or whatever, but without a financial nest egg, or otherwise ability to afford security, a woman can easily feel more intimidated about striking it out on their own. Men simply do not have to worry about their physical safety in the same manner.
        mantas 4y ago
        Think long-term. Women handle home stuff and raise kids. Women can raise the next generation of boys and girls however they wish. If they keep propagating existing culture... It's done by women to next generation of women. Most Amish communities do send kids out to explore the world. And looking at other comments, Amish women are usually more adopted to outside world and have modern office skills helping men construction etc businesses. Semi-related... In my post-soviet country, we've a huge problem that women were forced out of home to the workforce in soviet era. Yet men were still sofa kings. Then 90s rolled in with huge unemployment and frequently women were handling both home & working, while men camped on sofas unemployed instead of taking care of the house. Guess who is propagating this culture? Mothers and grandmothers mostly. For decades they treated boys as a special case who should go out and play and they'll clean up the house. With the help of girls, obviously. In my own childhood, it was a recurring conflict. Mom telling me to do cleaning after school. Grandmother not allowing me to do that and kicking out of the house while cleaning herself. And talking around, it's a very common pattern. Also, guess who is talking shit how men are lazy?
- travisgriggs 4y ago
  Being associated and aware of a number of faith communities like this, I think you’re guess is upside down. When womens’ roles revolve more around children, the status and social currency of having them goes up, and so often it has been my observation that the women are the bigger driver (as opposed to “the patriarchy”).
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > When womens’ roles revolve more around children, the status and social currency of having them goes up, and so often it has been my observation that the women are the bigger driver (as opposed to “the patriarchy”). That's just another way of saying the same thing. In societies where non-childbearing-women are not valued, of _course_ having children increases your place in society. Patriachy isn't men dictating every action of every individual, it's structuring society so that the only real choice is the one that benefits the ruling class.
    - exolymph 4y ago
      Another way to phrase it is "when having a lot of kids is high-status, more women want to have a lot of kids." Also applies to men tbh.
    - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
      > Patriachy isn't men dictating every action of every individual, it's structuring society so that the only real choice is the one that benefits the ruling class. No, that's literally what patriarchy means, that the ruling class is men. When the ruling class is women, that's called matriarchy. When the ruling class doesn't favor either, it's neither.
      - kadoban 4y ago
        My point is that under a patriarchy, or any system of rule, people still have the ability to make choices. It's just that most/all of those are set up so that the only logical choice to make will benefit and reinforce the system of rule. So "X is not in the ruling class and X made a choice to improve their life" does _not_ suggest that a system of rule is not in place.
- mbar84 4y ago
  Women's financial independence is fragile. It depends upon the modern Welfare state, financed predominantly by men and the preservation of norms relating to alimony and child support, also financed predominantly by men. Time will tell if this model has a future, atm. the trends don't look too good.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > financed predominantly by men and the preservation of norms relating to alimony and child support, What does this mean? Women’s financial independence is dependent on their ability to secure income to provide for themself without the help of others. I do not see what it has to do with alimony and child support.
    - MandieD 4y ago
      This is one of those fellows who, perhaps due to some disappointments in his own life or those of friends, believes that all women are conniving dependents, looking only for a man to latch onto and take advantage of, and has trouble seeing that many of us do quite well on our own, provided that banks are required to treat us like they do men with similar finances, employers are required to treat us like they do men with similar qualifications, and that we are permitted to control our fertility. And the few unfortunate women I know who do rely on child support to help raise kids... I do not envy those women. Their lives are anywhere from hectic (single-parenting with fulltime jobs) to hard (trouble making ends meet, despite economizing).
pyuser583 4y ago
What do you mean by evolutionary pressure?
- mantas 4y ago
  Not OP, but likely that educated & well to do people don’t procreate much. While it’s lower rungs of society that procreates. E.g. chance to procreate has reverse correlation to IQ.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    What do you think the average IQ is of a billion-plus so Muslims based on that assertion?
    - mantas 4y ago
      Diverse, with same tendencies of IQ-to-procreation?
    - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
      That would depend on the selection pressures in Muslim societies. GP was probably talking about the US, Europe, and East Asia where smart and motivated non-religious people use their increased opportunity to move to the cities. Cities decrease birthrates for the middle classes. In Muslim communities, however, I would expect number of children to correlate with wealth/income (which is correlated with IQ) and with religiosity (which is not). So the overall picture is a lot more murky.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Let us leave IQ aside and talk just about education. The observation that educated urbanites have the lowest number of kids holds in the Islamic world, too. Big, developed cities like Istanbul and Tehran have TFR well below reproduction rate and very similar to European values. Backwaters like rural Afghanistan or Niger, where literacy is still uncommon, have tons of kids. Basic education for women is very well correlated with lower TFR everywhere in the world.
    - 4y ago

Contraceptives are causing the biggest evolutionary pressure mankind has ever faced. Groups like the Amish who want to have kids have a ton while the secular population decreases.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

Also, women’s financial independence and general increase in their freedom. I wonder if Amish women are completely free to decide how many kids they want.

xyzzyz 4y ago
They probably aren’t, and neither are Amish men.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Men are physically more powerful than women, I think how many children a man wants is much more in the man’s control than how many kids a woman wants.
  - mantas 4y ago
    Woman is the gatekeeper, unless you want include rape-y options. But then the more traditional society is, the child raising is on women. And it’s women who raise next generation of men…
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Yes, I do not think women had complete agency in deciding to have 5+ kids each. Or even 4. And it is probably still the same case for many around the world. Kind of like this scene: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE
      - mantas 4y ago
        Men are in the same boat if the whole community is focused on raising big families. In traditional communities women do vast majority of children raising. They're essentially gatekeepers of the culture. If the community wanted to reject the culture, women are the ones who can bring forward the change. If they want, of course. Sort of like in western world people have no „complete agency“ to refuse consumerist work/buy/die life. Technically they can, but in reality the society is stacked against that. I'd argue that Amish are even more flexible than mainstream. Amish communities kick out the young to explore the world and then return on your own accord. Is mainstream society willing to kick out the kids to live with amishes or something along those lines? As far as I see, with very few exceptions, it's reinforcing the work/buy/die cycle.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        > If the community wanted to reject the culture, women are the ones who can bring forward the change. If they want, of course. How? If they reject it, they then need to go out and find shelter, and food, and income, in a world where they are negotiating with men, more who are all more physically powerful, as well as cognizant of the woman’s lesser negotiating position. I do not know about Amish forcing their young to do non Amish things or whatever, but without a financial nest egg, or otherwise ability to afford security, a woman can easily feel more intimidated about striking it out on their own. Men simply do not have to worry about their physical safety in the same manner.
        mantas 4y ago
        Think long-term. Women handle home stuff and raise kids. Women can raise the next generation of boys and girls however they wish. If they keep propagating existing culture... It's done by women to next generation of women. Most Amish communities do send kids out to explore the world. And looking at other comments, Amish women are usually more adopted to outside world and have modern office skills helping men construction etc businesses. Semi-related... In my post-soviet country, we've a huge problem that women were forced out of home to the workforce in soviet era. Yet men were still sofa kings. Then 90s rolled in with huge unemployment and frequently women were handling both home & working, while men camped on sofas unemployed instead of taking care of the house. Guess who is propagating this culture? Mothers and grandmothers mostly. For decades they treated boys as a special case who should go out and play and they'll clean up the house. With the help of girls, obviously. In my own childhood, it was a recurring conflict. Mom telling me to do cleaning after school. Grandmother not allowing me to do that and kicking out of the house while cleaning herself. And talking around, it's a very common pattern. Also, guess who is talking shit how men are lazy?
travisgriggs 4y ago
Being associated and aware of a number of faith communities like this, I think you’re guess is upside down. When womens’ roles revolve more around children, the status and social currency of having them goes up, and so often it has been my observation that the women are the bigger driver (as opposed to “the patriarchy”).
- kadoban 4y ago
  > When womens’ roles revolve more around children, the status and social currency of having them goes up, and so often it has been my observation that the women are the bigger driver (as opposed to “the patriarchy”). That's just another way of saying the same thing. In societies where non-childbearing-women are not valued, of _course_ having children increases your place in society. Patriachy isn't men dictating every action of every individual, it's structuring society so that the only real choice is the one that benefits the ruling class.
  - exolymph 4y ago
    Another way to phrase it is "when having a lot of kids is high-status, more women want to have a lot of kids." Also applies to men tbh.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    > Patriachy isn't men dictating every action of every individual, it's structuring society so that the only real choice is the one that benefits the ruling class. No, that's literally what patriarchy means, that the ruling class is men. When the ruling class is women, that's called matriarchy. When the ruling class doesn't favor either, it's neither.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      My point is that under a patriarchy, or any system of rule, people still have the ability to make choices. It's just that most/all of those are set up so that the only logical choice to make will benefit and reinforce the system of rule. So "X is not in the ruling class and X made a choice to improve their life" does _not_ suggest that a system of rule is not in place.
mbar84 4y ago
Women's financial independence is fragile. It depends upon the modern Welfare state, financed predominantly by men and the preservation of norms relating to alimony and child support, also financed predominantly by men. Time will tell if this model has a future, atm. the trends don't look too good.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > financed predominantly by men and the preservation of norms relating to alimony and child support, What does this mean? Women’s financial independence is dependent on their ability to secure income to provide for themself without the help of others. I do not see what it has to do with alimony and child support.
  - MandieD 4y ago
    This is one of those fellows who, perhaps due to some disappointments in his own life or those of friends, believes that all women are conniving dependents, looking only for a man to latch onto and take advantage of, and has trouble seeing that many of us do quite well on our own, provided that banks are required to treat us like they do men with similar finances, employers are required to treat us like they do men with similar qualifications, and that we are permitted to control our fertility. And the few unfortunate women I know who do rely on child support to help raise kids... I do not envy those women. Their lives are anywhere from hectic (single-parenting with fulltime jobs) to hard (trouble making ends meet, despite economizing).

pyuser583 4y ago

What do you mean by evolutionary pressure?

mantas 4y ago
Not OP, but likely that educated & well to do people don’t procreate much. While it’s lower rungs of society that procreates. E.g. chance to procreate has reverse correlation to IQ.
- tomcam 4y ago
  What do you think the average IQ is of a billion-plus so Muslims based on that assertion?
  - mantas 4y ago
    Diverse, with same tendencies of IQ-to-procreation?
  - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
    That would depend on the selection pressures in Muslim societies. GP was probably talking about the US, Europe, and East Asia where smart and motivated non-religious people use their increased opportunity to move to the cities. Cities decrease birthrates for the middle classes. In Muslim communities, however, I would expect number of children to correlate with wealth/income (which is correlated with IQ) and with religiosity (which is not). So the overall picture is a lot more murky.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Let us leave IQ aside and talk just about education. The observation that educated urbanites have the lowest number of kids holds in the Islamic world, too. Big, developed cities like Istanbul and Tehran have TFR well below reproduction rate and very similar to European values. Backwaters like rural Afghanistan or Niger, where literacy is still uncommon, have tons of kids. Basic education for women is very well correlated with lower TFR everywhere in the world.
  - 4y ago