3 ms·
I think it's the opposite. In an arranged marriage the spouses are selected by their family irrespective of the merits of the kids involved. Free choice means y
by cm2187 4y ago
I think it's the opposite. In an arranged marriage the spouses are selected by their family irrespective of the merits of the kids involved. Free choice means you will select the spouse based on the merit of the spouse. I think it's much more likely to lead to gene selection.
If beautiful people marry beautiful people and ugly people marry ugly people, you effectively get a sort of breeding (I know we don't like to use these animal terms but that's kind of what it is). Now you can refuse to call a natural preference "eugenics" but the reality is that you are still expressing a preference for some characters that you think are desirable and your progeniture is likely to inherit some of those characters.
This was of course a lot less prevalent in a society that lived in small villages with very little mobility (and therefore very little mating choice), which is why I think it's a process that only kicked in at the XX century. My guess is that we will see the effect in this century. Works with dogs, should work with humans.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoEverything you say makes sense, but none of it has to do with eugenics. It has to do with assortative mating. Eugenics is about socially driven desirable trait selection (where a trait can be what kind of family you come from). The social is the most important part. Not the trait selection. Individual trait selection allows a multitude of traits to thrive. Social trait selection tends not to.
- AstralStorm 4y agoAssortative in biological terms pertains to some biological traits. However, people more often assortative mate within thier social group. So you get an intersection of both but with the social factor vastly enhanced compared to biological. You cannot easily have children with someone you never met, after all, barring IVF with an unknown donor.