3 ms·

Not really, it just means that the majority of women will be dead ends and the few who are happy (and able) to have 12 kids will the be the ones who populate th

Not really, it just means that the majority of women will be dead ends and the few who are happy (and able) to have 12 kids will the be the ones who populate the future. The genetic effects of this are going to be interesting because until the 1970s a woman had a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive.

giantg2 3y ago
"The genetic effects" I've also wondered similar things. For example, fertility rate is higher with lower wealth. Lower wealth is also correlated to many things. Similar wealth and education levels have been shown to be a large mate selection factor as well. Will that lead to implicitly selectively breeding for those traits over generations?
- llm_trw 3y ago
  Also higher wealth. It's the poor and the rich that are having children. The middle class has decided to have a hysterectomy for some odd reason. At any rate, I just need to outlive the people not having children today, not too hard since they won't have a family safety net or enough to retire on, and I'll stop hearing these arguments since the people who believed them will be dead and the people who didn't listen to them are the only ones who will be around to talk.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    The data I see does not support that. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
    - llm_trw 3y ago
      That data is far too granular. It stops at middle class as though $200k is something impressive in this day and age.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        " as though $200k is something impressive in this day and age." Middle class is defined as 2x the median, and adjusted for locality. In the vast majority of the US, $200k+ is not middle class and is impressive. "That data is far too granular." It's granular enough to show a trend. Perhaps you have other data to share?
  - geraldwhen 3y ago
    Indeed. My grandchildren will not need to debate these points. And their grandchildren would find the ideas absurd.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    The middle is in an awkward position of higher quality everything for their children being within reach, yet not accessible without taking on significant financial risk – e.g. the kids might have excellent food, housing, schooling, etc but as a result the family would financially be walking a tightrope from which it can be easily knocked off should an unfortunate chain of events befall them. To try to work around this awkwardness and provide the best for their family while mitigating risk, this group is likely to wait as long as possible to accumulate resources to act as padding. Unfortunately it’s not a given that these goals can be met before time runs out on the biological clock.
Thorrez 3y ago
>The genetic effects of this are going to be interesting because until the 1970s a woman had a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive. How does that math work out? Every child has a mom and a dad. Are you referring to widowhood and remarriage? Divorce and remarriage? Polygamy? Were those so significant in the 1920 that it caused a "much better chance"?
- llm_trw 3y ago
  There has always been a surplus of men: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367246/
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    That's an interesting point I hadn't though of, thanks. However, I don't think it really backs up the previous comment. The link say's it's been even until recently: >In humans, this balance has been remarkably even, but the past few decades have seen a substantial shift towards men, notably in some Asian countries Yes there's an imbalance at birth: >around 103–107 male babies for every 100 female ones. However, 2 things about that imbalance: * I don't think 100:103 or 100:107 is big enough for "a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive". I would think "slightly better chance" would be more accurate. * The imbalance only exists as babys/kids. By reproductive age (the previous comment said "a woman had a much better chance than a man" not "a baby girl has a much better chance than a baby boy"), it evens out: >the initial surplus of boys decreases to roughly equal number of males and females during the all-important reproductive years in most populations.

giantg2 3y ago

"The genetic effects" I've also wondered similar things. For example, fertility rate is higher with lower wealth. Lower wealth is also correlated to many things. Similar wealth and education levels have been shown to be a large mate selection factor as well. Will that lead to implicitly selectively breeding for those traits over generations?

llm_trw 3y ago
Also higher wealth. It's the poor and the rich that are having children. The middle class has decided to have a hysterectomy for some odd reason. At any rate, I just need to outlive the people not having children today, not too hard since they won't have a family safety net or enough to retire on, and I'll stop hearing these arguments since the people who believed them will be dead and the people who didn't listen to them are the only ones who will be around to talk.
- giantg2 3y ago
  The data I see does not support that. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-fam...
  - llm_trw 3y ago
    That data is far too granular. It stops at middle class as though $200k is something impressive in this day and age.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      " as though $200k is something impressive in this day and age." Middle class is defined as 2x the median, and adjusted for locality. In the vast majority of the US, $200k+ is not middle class and is impressive. "That data is far too granular." It's granular enough to show a trend. Perhaps you have other data to share?
- geraldwhen 3y ago
  Indeed. My grandchildren will not need to debate these points. And their grandchildren would find the ideas absurd.
- jwells89 3y ago
  The middle is in an awkward position of higher quality everything for their children being within reach, yet not accessible without taking on significant financial risk – e.g. the kids might have excellent food, housing, schooling, etc but as a result the family would financially be walking a tightrope from which it can be easily knocked off should an unfortunate chain of events befall them. To try to work around this awkwardness and provide the best for their family while mitigating risk, this group is likely to wait as long as possible to accumulate resources to act as padding. Unfortunately it’s not a given that these goals can be met before time runs out on the biological clock.

Thorrez 3y ago

>The genetic effects of this are going to be interesting because until the 1970s a woman had a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive. How does that math work out? Every child has a mom and a dad. Are you referring to widowhood and remarriage? Divorce and remarriage? Polygamy? Were those so significant in the 1920 that it caused a "much better chance"?

llm_trw 3y ago
There has always been a surplus of men: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367246/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367246/
- Thorrez 3y ago
  That's an interesting point I hadn't though of, thanks. However, I don't think it really backs up the previous comment. The link say's it's been even until recently: >In humans, this balance has been remarkably even, but the past few decades have seen a substantial shift towards men, notably in some Asian countries Yes there's an imbalance at birth: >around 103–107 male babies for every 100 female ones. However, 2 things about that imbalance: * I don't think 100:103 or 100:107 is big enough for "a much better chance than a man of having some average number of children survive". I would think "slightly better chance" would be more accurate. * The imbalance only exists as babys/kids. By reproductive age (the previous comment said "a woman had a much better chance than a man" not "a baby girl has a much better chance than a baby boy"), it evens out: >the initial surplus of boys decreases to roughly equal number of males and females during the all-important reproductive years in most populations.