4 ms·

Fertility drop is a self correcting problem. The people who are not having kids will be less represented in the future gene pool. Those who are having 3 or 4+ k

Fertility drop is a self correcting problem. The people who are not having kids will be less represented in the future gene pool. Those who are having 3 or 4+ kids, and whatever the associated genes are, will make up the majority within a few generations. And also, humans probably overshot on reproduction in the 20th century. It was 5-10x growth. Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea. Trying to proselytize or raise a crisis about fertility is pointless.

FactKnower69 2y ago
because as we know, human behavior is primarily genetic
- tuatoru 2y ago
  Perhaps you thought you were being ironic. You weren't. "Common knowledge" is seriously behind the state of the science.
  - orwin 2y ago
    Can we have links to "the state of science"?
    - tuatoru 2y ago
      Some popularisations: "A Troublesome Inheritance" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "A Farewell to Alms" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "Human Diversity" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro... Read the citations and go from there.
      - orwin 2y ago
        Sadly, i am pretty close with a population geneticist (Dr Mallard, worked for the CNRS and INRAE before retiring ~20 years ago, we had regular, very informative dinners for years), and while i cannot judge "A farewell to Alms (which seems great), i can tell you that we talked "A Troublesome Inheritance". It was not good. The context was about the lack of science popularization, and he took the example of this book and his author, which he copiously insulted, and said it was exactly the reason why scientists do not trust journalists and avoid them, because while being ignorantly misquoted and misunderstood isn't a good feeling, being approached with bad intentions and being misread and misquoted on purpose in order to push political agenda is worse. I would have to research more on why this book in particular was on his mind, but i would bet that most geneticists think this book is hogwash.
        tuatoru 2y ago
        Nice social dominance/purity display, bro, but irrelevant. I said "read the citations and go from there", meaning: you'll find the names of researchers, the names of journals, and keywords to search for; and looking up citation indices will help further.
        orwin 2y ago
        My main issue is the state of the science in 2019 was that epigenetic had a way stronger influence on genetics than previously thought, so i thought you had a new twin study showing that behavior was so overwhelmingly decided by genetics that epigenetic influence did not matter. I did not find any relevant twin study in your book citations, also, they are all old and not up to date (i'm not either, my last meaningfull dive into that subject was pre-covid). To be honest, I mostly asked because i thought i had missed a new study between 2019 and today, so giving me pre-2015 books wasn't helpfull :/
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway211 2y ago
But... today's generation of have few children are the descendants of yesterday'shave many children.
- marcell 2y ago
  Yea but that can be explained by birth control. Before, just sex drive was enough to reproduce. Now you need a different disposition.
  - throwaway211 2y ago
    How about looking internatinally for equivalence? Since China lifted the one-child policy and now even encourage more children, birthrates have gone down. Or historical equivalence when David Ricardo, in response to Malthusian population doom disaster predictions pointed out that increasing rents causes smaller families. I feel this time it's different isn't reason itself.
xscott 2y ago
> Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but a half century without a growing population seems like it'll cause some changes/consequences for investment and retirement. Will the overall stock market grow faster than inflation when there aren't more customers to buy stuff? Can you actually save for retirement when your investments don't grow? I have no idea how things will change, but it's not obvious that quality of life will improve.
npteljes 2y ago
>Fertility drop is a self correcting problem. If it was, it would have been corrected already.
2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago
so wanting children is genetically determined and inherited? can you back this up with a single study? :)
snapplebobapple 2y ago
There's 2 problems with your line of thought: 1. The portion of the problem that is due to chemical exposure decreasing fertility and/or effective birth control/abortion is not a self correcting problem without identifying and stopping the chemical exposure and/or changing the economics of having kids to turn the very recent invention of having kids being mostly a choice, rather than a likely consequence of sex, into a choice people want to make sooner and more often. 2. The way this problem has been self correcting in history was through the destruction of the society through calamity or conquest and someone new moving in either with actual new people or with a new ruling regime. Neither of those sound like any fun to me, I'd rather people change the prevailing custom through discourse, as this article is attempting to do.

FactKnower69 2y ago

because as we know, human behavior is primarily genetic

tuatoru 2y ago
Perhaps you thought you were being ironic. You weren't. "Common knowledge" is seriously behind the state of the science.
- orwin 2y ago
  Can we have links to "the state of science"?
  - tuatoru 2y ago
    Some popularisations: "A Troublesome Inheritance" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00G3L7VFM/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "A Farewell to Alms" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001EQ4OLA/ref=kinw_myk_ro... "Human Diversity" https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07Y8K5FX8/ref=kinw_myk_ro... Read the citations and go from there.
    - orwin 2y ago
      Sadly, i am pretty close with a population geneticist (Dr Mallard, worked for the CNRS and INRAE before retiring ~20 years ago, we had regular, very informative dinners for years), and while i cannot judge "A farewell to Alms (which seems great), i can tell you that we talked "A Troublesome Inheritance". It was not good. The context was about the lack of science popularization, and he took the example of this book and his author, which he copiously insulted, and said it was exactly the reason why scientists do not trust journalists and avoid them, because while being ignorantly misquoted and misunderstood isn't a good feeling, being approached with bad intentions and being misread and misquoted on purpose in order to push political agenda is worse. I would have to research more on why this book in particular was on his mind, but i would bet that most geneticists think this book is hogwash.
      - tuatoru 2y ago
        Nice social dominance/purity display, bro, but irrelevant. I said "read the citations and go from there", meaning: you'll find the names of researchers, the names of journals, and keywords to search for; and looking up citation indices will help further.
        orwin 2y ago
        My main issue is the state of the science in 2019 was that epigenetic had a way stronger influence on genetics than previously thought, so i thought you had a new twin study showing that behavior was so overwhelmingly decided by genetics that epigenetic influence did not matter. I did not find any relevant twin study in your book citations, also, they are all old and not up to date (i'm not either, my last meaningfull dive into that subject was pre-covid). To be honest, I mostly asked because i thought i had missed a new study between 2019 and today, so giving me pre-2015 books wasn't helpfull :/
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

throwaway211 2y ago

But... today's generation of have few children are the descendants of yesterday'shave many children.

marcell 2y ago
Yea but that can be explained by birth control. Before, just sex drive was enough to reproduce. Now you need a different disposition.
- throwaway211 2y ago
  How about looking internatinally for equivalence? Since China lifted the one-child policy and now even encourage more children, birthrates have gone down. Or historical equivalence when David Ricardo, in response to Malthusian population doom disaster predictions pointed out that increasing rents causes smaller families. I feel this time it's different isn't reason itself.

xscott 2y ago

> Cutting back and focusing on quality for a century or two seems like a good idea. I don't have a strong opinion one way or another, but a half century without a growing population seems like it'll cause some changes/consequences for investment and retirement. Will the overall stock market grow faster than inflation when there aren't more customers to buy stuff? Can you actually save for retirement when your investments don't grow? I have no idea how things will change, but it's not obvious that quality of life will improve.

npteljes 2y ago

>Fertility drop is a self correcting problem. If it was, it would have been corrected already.

2-3-7-43-1807 2y ago

so wanting children is genetically determined and inherited? can you back this up with a single study? :)

snapplebobapple 2y ago

There's 2 problems with your line of thought: 1. The portion of the problem that is due to chemical exposure decreasing fertility and/or effective birth control/abortion is not a self correcting problem without identifying and stopping the chemical exposure and/or changing the economics of having kids to turn the very recent invention of having kids being mostly a choice, rather than a likely consequence of sex, into a choice people want to make sooner and more often. 2. The way this problem has been self correcting in history was through the destruction of the society through calamity or conquest and someone new moving in either with actual new people or with a new ruling regime. Neither of those sound like any fun to me, I'd rather people change the prevailing custom through discourse, as this article is attempting to do.