5 ms·

Eventually evolution will catch up. Surely there must be some gene that motivates us to have a lot of kids. If such a gene exists it will quickly wipe out any g

Eventually evolution will catch up. Surely there must be some gene that motivates us to have a lot of kids. If such a gene exists it will quickly wipe out any genetic competition. It could also work indirectly, for instance a genetic disposition that pushes humans into fundamentalist religions that are opposed to birth control.

jojobas 4y ago
It's not exactly opposition to birth control, it's more like indoctrination of women (some would even say brainwashing) into having kids like crazy.
- thriftwy 4y ago
  Our societies can't even keep up producing child care, schools and jobs for the small amount of children we have. Can't imagine them succeeding in indoctrination. Having children is awesome but it is also a hard work and quite costly. It would be quite hard to compel modern people have 3+ children.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    People in Africa and India keep having many kids in atrocious conditions. "Inadequate childcare" and "costly" are not even on the cards when they marry and get on with making kids. The West used to be like that too, but then something changed and living on in your kids took the back seat to premium consumption.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      India has declining birth rate as well and probably below reproduction rate already. People are not stupid. It just takes them some time to adjust. African societies may still be forced to use children as free field labor. The more centralized their agriculture becomes, the fewer children they would need. The most important resource to spend on children is time. Even if you decide to cut on spendings, it does not add any extra time. With both parents employed full time, there's very small wedge to stick children into.
    - bergenty 4y ago
      India is below replacement rate (1.9) as of 2019
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    You don't need child care when women aren't in the work force.
    - jojobas 4y ago
      You also don't need baby formula and get (other things equal) physically and mentally healthier kids.
      - thriftwy 4y ago
        A long maternity leave will do. What if women genuinely want to have identity based on what they do? Full time employment is probably the thing which has to go in favor of reproduction, it's akin peonage in that regard.
        bergenty 4y ago
        What if I want to have identity based on something I don’t do? We all want things but society can’t always sustain itself that way.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        Let's imagine you want to have an identity of a person working for a hot start-up. How would you explain that a 25 years old male can be a first developer employee in a start-up, but a 25 years old female can't be a talent acquisition manager there? And then fail to crop up a period of inactivity in their career to have a child?
        jojobas 4y ago
        You have to sacrifice some things to achieve other things. If you want to sacrifice procreation for a career, you won't be the first to be taken care of by evolution.
        thriftwy 4y ago
otikik 4y ago
Genes still play a role, but memes (the pre-internet kind- similar to an idea) will likely play a big role. We have seen it in the past: “God wants you to grow and multiply” of the Old Testament or “One Child Per Family” in China, in the past. In a way memes are the “genes” of a society.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  Yet China today is saying "Have three kids" and the Chinese people are by and large saying "Meh".
  - otikik 4y ago
    In that case, the Meme defining society is "Meh". It's not always a top-down thing.
iso1631 4y ago
There was an optimistic forward looking documentary style movie about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA
jjk166 4y ago
On the contrary, we are genetically predisposed to having small numbers of kids, only a bit above replacement rate at most. Humans are K-specialists with extremely resource intensive offspring. Population growth is purely the result of improved living conditions causing lower mortality, and thus having the minimum number of kids you needed before results in a surplus.

jojobas 4y ago

It's not exactly opposition to birth control, it's more like indoctrination of women (some would even say brainwashing) into having kids like crazy.

thriftwy 4y ago
Our societies can't even keep up producing child care, schools and jobs for the small amount of children we have. Can't imagine them succeeding in indoctrination. Having children is awesome but it is also a hard work and quite costly. It would be quite hard to compel modern people have 3+ children.
- jojobas 4y ago
  People in Africa and India keep having many kids in atrocious conditions. "Inadequate childcare" and "costly" are not even on the cards when they marry and get on with making kids. The West used to be like that too, but then something changed and living on in your kids took the back seat to premium consumption.
  - thriftwy 4y ago
    India has declining birth rate as well and probably below reproduction rate already. People are not stupid. It just takes them some time to adjust. African societies may still be forced to use children as free field labor. The more centralized their agriculture becomes, the fewer children they would need. The most important resource to spend on children is time. Even if you decide to cut on spendings, it does not add any extra time. With both parents employed full time, there's very small wedge to stick children into.
  - bergenty 4y ago
    India is below replacement rate (1.9) as of 2019
- thrown_22 4y ago
  You don't need child care when women aren't in the work force.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    You also don't need baby formula and get (other things equal) physically and mentally healthier kids.
    - thriftwy 4y ago
      A long maternity leave will do. What if women genuinely want to have identity based on what they do? Full time employment is probably the thing which has to go in favor of reproduction, it's akin peonage in that regard.
      - bergenty 4y ago
        What if I want to have identity based on something I don’t do? We all want things but society can’t always sustain itself that way.
        thriftwy 4y ago
        Let's imagine you want to have an identity of a person working for a hot start-up. How would you explain that a 25 years old male can be a first developer employee in a start-up, but a 25 years old female can't be a talent acquisition manager there? And then fail to crop up a period of inactivity in their career to have a child?
        jojobas 4y ago
        You have to sacrifice some things to achieve other things. If you want to sacrifice procreation for a career, you won't be the first to be taken care of by evolution.
        thriftwy 4y ago

otikik 4y ago

Genes still play a role, but memes (the pre-internet kind- similar to an idea) will likely play a big role. We have seen it in the past: “God wants you to grow and multiply” of the Old Testament or “One Child Per Family” in China, in the past. In a way memes are the “genes” of a society.

thrown_22 4y ago
Yet China today is saying "Have three kids" and the Chinese people are by and large saying "Meh".
- otikik 4y ago
  In that case, the Meme defining society is "Meh". It's not always a top-down thing.

iso1631 4y ago

There was an optimistic forward looking documentary style movie about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP2tUW0HDHA

jjk166 4y ago

On the contrary, we are genetically predisposed to having small numbers of kids, only a bit above replacement rate at most. Humans are K-specialists with extremely resource intensive offspring. Population growth is purely the result of improved living conditions causing lower mortality, and thus having the minimum number of kids you needed before results in a surplus.