4 ms·

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 reve

by 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.
- stevehawk 4y ago
  Amish and Mennonites have an extraordinary prevalence of genetic disease, as do orthodox jewish persons. Due to generations amongst generations of never breeding outside their religious views they've caused havoc on their own genes.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    "They've caused havoc on their own genes" - genes don't work like that. Here's one thing some people in this thread need to understand. Nature doesn't care. Nature doesn't judge you if you don't have kids. Your genes being slightly less prevalent down the timeline isn't a punishment. There's no high score table at the end of time saying "This is how good your genes did". Even the idea that they are "yours" is pretty incoherent. If stuff like who gets most kids worries you, you seriously need to look elsewhere for meaning in your lives. That's one thing you could learn from the Amish.
    - mantas 4y ago
      That's pretty much how evolution works. Either your genes propagate and stay around, or not. Nature doesn't judge you, it just gets rid of you.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        “My genes” are carried by a really large number of people. It’s pretty much guaranteed many will reproduce. I die because nature has selected humans to have a certain lifespan. In many species, almost no individuals reproduce. Worker ants never have children. Same with worker bees. Plenty of species select have some/most members not reproduce to protect assist species.
        mantas 4y ago
        Ants are not mammals so procreation and societal structure is very different from humans. Same in bees etc. From evolutionary perspective, only your genes are „your“ genes. And from tribal perspective, procreation of each (quality) member is for the better. P.S. At some points in human history we had a similar only-chosen-procreate tendency. But it was overturned. I'd argue that for the better. Humans who have a stake in the future seem to care more about the society. Compared to ants-like society where warlord procreates and the rest of men just guards his harem.
      - vintermann 4y ago
throwaway_4ever 4y ago
As told by the intro to Idiocracy movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA
- mbar84 4y ago
  *foretold

by 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.
stevehawk 4y ago
Amish and Mennonites have an extraordinary prevalence of genetic disease, as do orthodox jewish persons. Due to generations amongst generations of never breeding outside their religious views they've caused havoc on their own genes.
- vintermann 4y ago
  "They've caused havoc on their own genes" - genes don't work like that. Here's one thing some people in this thread need to understand. Nature doesn't care. Nature doesn't judge you if you don't have kids. Your genes being slightly less prevalent down the timeline isn't a punishment. There's no high score table at the end of time saying "This is how good your genes did". Even the idea that they are "yours" is pretty incoherent. If stuff like who gets most kids worries you, you seriously need to look elsewhere for meaning in your lives. That's one thing you could learn from the Amish.
  - mantas 4y ago
    That's pretty much how evolution works. Either your genes propagate and stay around, or not. Nature doesn't judge you, it just gets rid of you.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      “My genes” are carried by a really large number of people. It’s pretty much guaranteed many will reproduce. I die because nature has selected humans to have a certain lifespan. In many species, almost no individuals reproduce. Worker ants never have children. Same with worker bees. Plenty of species select have some/most members not reproduce to protect assist species.
      - mantas 4y ago
        Ants are not mammals so procreation and societal structure is very different from humans. Same in bees etc. From evolutionary perspective, only your genes are „your“ genes. And from tribal perspective, procreation of each (quality) member is for the better. P.S. At some points in human history we had a similar only-chosen-procreate tendency. But it was overturned. I'd argue that for the better. Humans who have a stake in the future seem to care more about the society. Compared to ants-like society where warlord procreates and the rest of men just guards his harem.
    - vintermann 4y ago

throwaway_4ever 4y ago

As told by the intro to Idiocracy movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA

mbar84 4y ago
*foretold