2 ms·
It's an "evolutionary dead end" if we assume that people who intend to be "child free" follow through with it. What you're describing it more akin to waiting un
by brightball 3y ago
It's an "evolutionary dead end" if we assume that people who intend to be "child free" follow through with it. What you're describing it more akin to waiting until you're more financially stable, which is perfectly normal.
There's an entire swath of people in society today who are voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool, for a number of different reasons. Some of those reasons are marketed influences trying to convince people to do it too, which is more nefarious in my opinion.
No matter how you slice it though, from an evolutionary perspective deciding not to reproduce only has one outcome.
- smoldesu 3y agoThe majority of people who choose to be child-free are doing just that - making a choice. Unless you are referring to the extreme minority of people who castrate or kill themselves to avoid conception, you're not actually describing people being "removed" from anything. They're just making choices that don't result in conception. If someone is gay, they are most likely still capable of conceiving with the opposite sex. They are making a series of conscious decisions that preclude that conception, but they haven't been "removed" from the gene pool any more than a straight couple using a condom has been. Unless you don't believe in free will, most people are not at a "dead-end" at all.
- nvm0n2 3y agoAre they? Most women I know who are child less (not on board with calling it "child free", as if it's a sort of disease), ended up that way because they didn't get into a stable relationship quickly enough before their biology caught up with them. It wasn't so much an explicit choice as much as a consequence of an inability to be satisfied with a partner, or inability to settle.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]