3 ms·
I have a better theory. In many societies, the alpha usually dominates the gene pool of the next generation. In some animal and human societies, only the alph
by helveticaman 18y ago
I have a better theory.
In many societies, the alpha usually dominates the gene pool of the next generation. In some animal and human societies, only the alpha reproduces.
If you're poor, your kids are going to be even poorer, and their kids will be even poorer, eventually leading to a genetic dead end. None of your genes will become a permanent part of posterity unless you are an alpha. In this way, it makes sense to gamble 5% of your income, which would not make a transcendental difference anyway, for a chance of attaining alpha status. From that point of view, it makes perfect sense.
- Chocobean 18y agointeresting. But I thought traditionally there are way more poor people than there are rich people, and that poor people have way more kids than rich people. In fact it's a little depressing that the poor will always be with us instead of being evolutionary losers and be a problem that will'take care of itself'.
- helveticaman 18y agoPoor people having more babies than rich people seemed weird to me, but in reality, throughout history, poor people (or people with little status) make babies that don't really make it to adulthood at the rate of high status people (see Gregg Clark). Overall, in Malthusian societies, there's not enough food to go around, and the poor are the last to be fed.