6 ms·

It's a self-correcting problem. The people who don't have children select themselves out of the gene pool and are replaced by those who do have children.

debesyla 2y ago
It's debatable if choice/want/accident of having children is based on genetics.
- benchmarkist 2y ago
  It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies. If you're talking about environmental pollution and declining fertility because of it then that's something else but even then, those who manage to survive and persist in a polluted environment will be the ones who pass on copies of their genes.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    > It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies That's.... not how humans work. If people choose to have less children, which has very little to do with their genetics, there are fewer children to replicate, not "replacement" with children who are genetically determined to be fecund.
    - benchmarkist 2y ago
      Humans are animals and animals which do not replicate are selected out of the gene pool. There is nothing to argue here.
      - notahacker 2y ago
        Nobody is taking issue with the fact that humans that do not replicate do not pass on their genes They are taking issue with the ludicrous assertion that falling birth rates are "self correcting" because the offspring of people who do replicate are somehow genetically predisposed to have more children to "replace" them.
        benchmarkist 2y ago
        Either they'll have children or they won't and the ones who do will replace the ones who don't. It's like I said, whatever people perceive to be a problem is not actually a problem because it corrects itself without any interventions.
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        It depends on what you consider the problem to be. I personally didn't think there is a problem, but if you define the problem to be "population decline until there are no people left", your solution doesn't work. Unless maybe you consider other mammals to be people too.
        benchmarkist 2y ago
        I haven't defined any problems or solutions but certain people do seem to have defined the problem like you have. What I said specifically was that whatever people perceive to be a problem with the global human population is self-correcting (from a biological perspective) because those who voluntarily choose to not procreate will be replaced by those who are more than happy to have as many children as possible. If someone has a different perspective on this then they are welcome to make their version of the problem explicit and concrete and explain what exactly they propose as a valid intervention for fixing it. I suspect and am almost certain they have not thought about the issue as rigorously as they think and are simply parroting popular talking points they've seen and heard on social media platforms about the impending collapse of civilization caused by declining birth rates.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    The pool of replicators can prune itself in many ways (indeed, it must), but that doesn't mean that those prunings are having any effect on the pool of genes. The relative frequency of fertility-relevant alleles is just as likely to remain stable. It's called Hardy Weinberg equilibrium and it's the default state for large populations that are not experiencing predation or expanding into new niches.
    - benchmarkist 2y ago
      That's good to know.
- lmm 2y ago
  Personality traits are a whole lot more heritable than it's fashionable to admit.
  - Someone 2y ago
    Birth rate doesn’t seem to be very heritable, given the amount it can change over relatively short periods of time. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File%3A1910-_Fertility_rate_-_United_States.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File%3A1910-... shows it going from 8 around 1940 to 12 around 1957 and back down to 7 around 1972 in the USA.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  If you are barking mad ane propagate , i choose you, evopokemon
bawolff 2y ago
That's oversimplifying. Do the people who don't have children send resources to relatives who do? Making the family more succesful? Not to mention it isn't a binary really. There is a middle ground of simply having less children. A family that has a single child is still below replacement and quite different from a family with 5. Regardless, genes are still being passed on.
- benchmarkist 2y ago
  Sounds like you agree that there is no problem.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    If by problem you mean some variant of: humans are going to stop having babies and go extinct, then yes, i agree that is rediculous. However i disagree with the mechanism you propose. Having less children can be evolutionarily advantous in some circumtances. People will have less children when it makes sense, and have more children when conditions change and that make sense.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - benchmarkist 2y ago
      Great, it's always good to reach a clear resolution.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  Do you see this happening a lot on modern industrial societies?
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    Modern industrial societies (with strong womens rights) are a relatively new thing. We'll adapt. Most likely by making it much easier to have and raise children so that educated, rich folks don't avoid it so long.
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
I believe you are describing the plot of Idiocracy.
- benchmarkist 2y ago
  I'm not making any value judgements. Intelligence is not necessary for replication.
Qem 2y ago
If natural selection were that effective, no species would ever go extinct. And yet most do. Relying on natural selection to shrug off problems is like making lottery tickets your retirement plan.
myrmidon 2y ago
Strongly disagree with that take. Genetics can only have a minor influence on number of offspring, because the genetic makeup of basically every industrialized nation did not change completely within 20 years. If there was no other factor apart from genetics, it is decidedly unclear if that could stabilize population numbers on its own. But it won't have to, almost for certain, because non-genetic mechanisms will balance this in all likelyhood ("organized" incentives from states and also emerging ressource over-supply), and those mechanisms will work MUCH faster than genetics ever could.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  He's not saying that genetics caused the problem, but that natural selection will solve the problem. Natural selection also need not be obviously genetic. For example certain religious groups maintain very healthy fertility rates, while secular populations tend to have quite poor fertility rates. So this logically leads to an outcome very few would intuitively expect - the percent of humanity that is religious will likely increase over the coming decades and centuries. Also collapsing populations will lead to resource scarcity. One of the many negatives of low fertility is that you end up with far more elderly than working age people. Any given market will also naturally decrease in size, all other things being equal. These factors, amongst others, will completely wreck economies which may well end up creating a vicious cycle against fertility. Another reason I think 'organized incentives' will be unlikely to achieve much is that Scandinavia had been at the forefront of fertility collapse in Europe and they have both an exremely strong social safety net as well as great minimum maternity benefits. Clearly there are other factors than economic inability driving people to go childless or to only have 1.
- Animats 2y ago
  Japan and France have tried incentives, with little effect. Japan is even cutting their social security payments to pay for increased subsidies for children.[1] France has a benefit scheme for parents with two or more children.[2] It's about EUR75 per month, so not that big. [1] https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japan-enacts-child-care-law-to-tackle-declining-birthrate.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japa... [2] https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?lang=en https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?...
__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
In humans, memes are a stronger driver of fertility than genes. It is a self correcting problem, but that's because having more children than you can support is an antimeme. Even if they survive and reproduce, they won't pass on the "large family" trait.
wkat4242 2y ago
I don't think the predisposition to have children is genetic though. At least not mostly. It's more an effect of circumstances and living conditions. A lot of people just had kids as a retirement fund (basically still the case in poor countries) or because it was pushed on them by religion. Personally I just think it's just a lot of hassle and I don't think it adds much value to my life. Others will of course differ in opinion hugely. One thing is sure to me though, humanity isn't going to die out. Our planet is overpopulated as it is.

debesyla 2y ago

It's debatable if choice/want/accident of having children is based on genetics.

benchmarkist 2y ago
It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies. If you're talking about environmental pollution and declining fertility because of it then that's something else but even then, those who manage to survive and persist in a polluted environment will be the ones who pass on copies of their genes.
- notahacker 2y ago
  > It's a tautology. Replicators which do not replicate do not persist in the environment and so are selected out of the pool of replicators. So whatever genes persist in the environment are tautologically the ones that managed to replicate and persist. The people who do not have children are selecting themselves out of the pool of genes that make copies so will be replaced with ones that do make copies That's.... not how humans work. If people choose to have less children, which has very little to do with their genetics, there are fewer children to replicate, not "replacement" with children who are genetically determined to be fecund.
  - benchmarkist 2y ago
    Humans are animals and animals which do not replicate are selected out of the gene pool. There is nothing to argue here.
    - notahacker 2y ago
      Nobody is taking issue with the fact that humans that do not replicate do not pass on their genes They are taking issue with the ludicrous assertion that falling birth rates are "self correcting" because the offspring of people who do replicate are somehow genetically predisposed to have more children to "replace" them.
      - benchmarkist 2y ago
        Either they'll have children or they won't and the ones who do will replace the ones who don't. It's like I said, whatever people perceive to be a problem is not actually a problem because it corrects itself without any interventions.
        amanaplanacanal 2y ago
        It depends on what you consider the problem to be. I personally didn't think there is a problem, but if you define the problem to be "population decline until there are no people left", your solution doesn't work. Unless maybe you consider other mammals to be people too.
        benchmarkist 2y ago
        I haven't defined any problems or solutions but certain people do seem to have defined the problem like you have. What I said specifically was that whatever people perceive to be a problem with the global human population is self-correcting (from a biological perspective) because those who voluntarily choose to not procreate will be replaced by those who are more than happy to have as many children as possible. If someone has a different perspective on this then they are welcome to make their version of the problem explicit and concrete and explain what exactly they propose as a valid intervention for fixing it. I suspect and am almost certain they have not thought about the issue as rigorously as they think and are simply parroting popular talking points they've seen and heard on social media platforms about the impending collapse of civilization caused by declining birth rates.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  The pool of replicators can prune itself in many ways (indeed, it must), but that doesn't mean that those prunings are having any effect on the pool of genes. The relative frequency of fertility-relevant alleles is just as likely to remain stable. It's called Hardy Weinberg equilibrium and it's the default state for large populations that are not experiencing predation or expanding into new niches.
  - benchmarkist 2y ago
    That's good to know.
lmm 2y ago
Personality traits are a whole lot more heritable than it's fashionable to admit.
- Someone 2y ago
  Birth rate doesn’t seem to be very heritable, given the amount it can change over relatively short periods of time. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File%3A1910-_Fertility_rate_-_United_States.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_rate#/media/File%3A1910-... shows it going from 8 around 1940 to 12 around 1957 and back down to 7 around 1972 in the USA.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
If you are barking mad ane propagate , i choose you, evopokemon

bawolff 2y ago

That's oversimplifying. Do the people who don't have children send resources to relatives who do? Making the family more succesful? Not to mention it isn't a binary really. There is a middle ground of simply having less children. A family that has a single child is still below replacement and quite different from a family with 5. Regardless, genes are still being passed on.

benchmarkist 2y ago
Sounds like you agree that there is no problem.
- bawolff 2y ago
  If by problem you mean some variant of: humans are going to stop having babies and go extinct, then yes, i agree that is rediculous. However i disagree with the mechanism you propose. Having less children can be evolutionarily advantous in some circumtances. People will have less children when it makes sense, and have more children when conditions change and that make sense.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - benchmarkist 2y ago
    Great, it's always good to reach a clear resolution.
elzbardico 2y ago
Do you see this happening a lot on modern industrial societies?
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  Modern industrial societies (with strong womens rights) are a relatively new thing. We'll adapt. Most likely by making it much easier to have and raise children so that educated, rich folks don't avoid it so long.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

I believe you are describing the plot of Idiocracy.

benchmarkist 2y ago
I'm not making any value judgements. Intelligence is not necessary for replication.

Qem 2y ago

If natural selection were that effective, no species would ever go extinct. And yet most do. Relying on natural selection to shrug off problems is like making lottery tickets your retirement plan.

myrmidon 2y ago

Strongly disagree with that take. Genetics can only have a minor influence on number of offspring, because the genetic makeup of basically every industrialized nation did not change completely within 20 years. If there was no other factor apart from genetics, it is decidedly unclear if that could stabilize population numbers on its own. But it won't have to, almost for certain, because non-genetic mechanisms will balance this in all likelyhood ("organized" incentives from states and also emerging ressource over-supply), and those mechanisms will work MUCH faster than genetics ever could.

ANewFormation 2y ago
He's not saying that genetics caused the problem, but that natural selection will solve the problem. Natural selection also need not be obviously genetic. For example certain religious groups maintain very healthy fertility rates, while secular populations tend to have quite poor fertility rates. So this logically leads to an outcome very few would intuitively expect - the percent of humanity that is religious will likely increase over the coming decades and centuries. Also collapsing populations will lead to resource scarcity. One of the many negatives of low fertility is that you end up with far more elderly than working age people. Any given market will also naturally decrease in size, all other things being equal. These factors, amongst others, will completely wreck economies which may well end up creating a vicious cycle against fertility. Another reason I think 'organized incentives' will be unlikely to achieve much is that Scandinavia had been at the forefront of fertility collapse in Europe and they have both an exremely strong social safety net as well as great minimum maternity benefits. Clearly there are other factors than economic inability driving people to go childless or to only have 1.
Animats 2y ago
Japan and France have tried incentives, with little effect. Japan is even cutting their social security payments to pay for increased subsidies for children.[1] France has a benefit scheme for parents with two or more children.[2] It's about EUR75 per month, so not that big. [1] https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japan-enacts-child-care-law-to-tackle-declining-birthrate.html https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/06/3918e2481936-japa... [2] https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?lang=en https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F13213?...

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

In humans, memes are a stronger driver of fertility than genes. It is a self correcting problem, but that's because having more children than you can support is an antimeme. Even if they survive and reproduce, they won't pass on the "large family" trait.

wkat4242 2y ago

I don't think the predisposition to have children is genetic though. At least not mostly. It's more an effect of circumstances and living conditions. A lot of people just had kids as a retirement fund (basically still the case in poor countries) or because it was pushed on them by religion. Personally I just think it's just a lot of hassle and I don't think it adds much value to my life. Others will of course differ in opinion hugely. One thing is sure to me though, humanity isn't going to die out. Our planet is overpopulated as it is.