6 ms·

My favorite Darwin fun fact is his detailed pros and cons list on whether to get married. https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-and-cons-o

My favorite Darwin fun fact is his detailed pros and cons list on whether to get married. https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-and-cons-of-marriage/ https://www.themarginalian.org/2012/08/14/darwin-list-pros-a...

libraryofbabel 2y ago
“better than a dog anyhow”
- fullstop 2y ago
  Darwin was a real catch. It always blows my mind how many people, historically, married their cousins. I guess smaller towns had shallower gene pools.
  - OkayPhysicist 2y ago
    Everyone who marries marries their cousin, it's just a matter of degree. Before the advent of the automobile, people traveled a lot less. Even more so as you go further back. Combine that with families having a lot more kids (you might have 36-64 surviving first cousins), and you've got a situation where nearly everyone you interact with might well be only a couple degrees of separation by blood. Marriage between first cousins has historically been a bit taboo, but so called third and fourth degree (aunts and uncles, first cousins) marriages were still pretty common. It wasn't really until the rise of the eugenics movement that the modern taboos and legal prohibitions were established. I've been doing a fair bit of genealogy lately, and you can see on the family tree pretty clearly when people moved from from smaller, insulated communities to larger cities. Above that point, the tree fans out a lot less.
    - fullstop 2y ago
      > Everyone who marries marries their cousin, it's just a matter of degree. Right, clearly I meant close (1st and 2nd) cousins. At the end of the day, we are all related, but that's kind of a technicality.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    Also royalty. The instability of some European monarchs has been attributed to inbreeding.
- trompetenaccoun 2y ago
  Brits are well-known romantics even today but 19th century society was on a whole different level.
Epa095 2y ago
Well, this hit harder than I thought it would My God, it is intolerable to think of spending one’s whole life, like a neuter bee, working, working, & nothing after all. — No, no won’t do.
- ty6853 2y ago
  In those those days though I'm not sure the calculus of working for the sake of the children was quite the same. You might have kids, and then they work the farm, then you manage the farm and slowly the children take over the manual labor and hard work of it. In old age the investment in the children pays off and a reciprocal relationship is formed where you take care of the grandchildren and your own children take care of you. Now that is flipped on its head. The parent makes the lions share of the investment in the child, but the benefits of the child is largely socialized. Want daycare, food, recreational, extra-cirricular activities -- basically anything other than public schooling you pay taxes for already? Go fuck yourself. But once the children is grown up, well well well we are a society here! Tax the shit out of the kid, spread the social security benefits around to everyone including people that didn't raise any children. And if you directly want a piece of the investment from the children, as people got in the old days, well then go fuck yourself you greedy selfish bastard -- it is only morally right when all of society does the exact same thing to the kid. There is every possible incentive in today's society to encourage others to have kids, ensuring your own retirement, but to reneg on doing it yourself because some other poor bastard can front most the costs and then you can tax the shit out of the kid for your retirement / social benefits. I think children were a rational decision in Darwin's day, now they are definitely not, because you are on the sucker end of a tragedy of the commons deal.
  - 369548684892826 2y ago
    None of this applies to Darwin though, he was wealthy and didn't need to think about "working the farm".
    - lukan 2y ago
      But apparently he needed to think about having to work for income to sustain a family.
jkingsman 2y ago
For such a giant of the scientific community, he was after all human. My two favorite journal entries: "But I am very poorly today & very stupid & hate everybody & everything." "I am going to write a little Book for Murray on orchids and today I hate them worse than everything."
- rolisz 2y ago
  Huh, I feel much closer to Darwin now
- moffkalast 2y ago
  "I cannot brain today, I have the dumb" Me too Charles, me too.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  He had chronic nausea (possibly abdominal migraine), so I'm not surprised he was feeling poorly.
- zabzonk 2y ago
  "I hate a Barnacle as no man ever did before"
boringg 2y ago
Children — (if it Please God) — Constant companion, (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, — object to be beloved & played with. — better than a dog anyhow.– Home, & someone to take care of house — Charms of music & female chit-chat. — These things good for one’s health. — """but terrible loss of time. —""" !!!! So ruthless in his calculus. One wonders if he was on the spectrum?
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > calculus It is calculus, it is performed like calculus - it has to.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
qoez 2y ago
I could have sworn that was Ben Franklin that wrote that
- mdp2021 2y ago
  Both Charles Darwin and Benjamin Franklin are quoted in informal Decision Theory. Both used pro-vs-cons tables to orient decision; Franklin also used weights. > When those difficult cases occur, they are difficult, chiefly because while we have them under consideration, all the reasons pro and con are not present to the mind at the same time; but sometimes some set present themselves, and at other times another, the first being out of sight. Hence the various purposes or inclinations that alternately prevail, and the uncertainty that perplexes us. // To get over this, my way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one pro, and over the other con. Then during three or four days consideration, I put down under the different heads short hits of the different motives, that at different times occur to me, for or against the measure. // When I have thus got them all together in one view, I endeavor to estimate their respective weights; and where I find two, one on each side, that seem equal, I strike them both out. If I find a reason pro equal to two reasons con, I strike out the three. If I judge some two reasons con, equal to some three reasons pro, I strike out the five; and thus proceeding I find at length where the balance lies, and if, after a day or two of further consideration, nothing new that is of importance occurs on either side, I come to a determination accordingly

libraryofbabel 2y ago

“better than a dog anyhow”

fullstop 2y ago
Darwin was a real catch. It always blows my mind how many people, historically, married their cousins. I guess smaller towns had shallower gene pools.
- OkayPhysicist 2y ago
  Everyone who marries marries their cousin, it's just a matter of degree. Before the advent of the automobile, people traveled a lot less. Even more so as you go further back. Combine that with families having a lot more kids (you might have 36-64 surviving first cousins), and you've got a situation where nearly everyone you interact with might well be only a couple degrees of separation by blood. Marriage between first cousins has historically been a bit taboo, but so called third and fourth degree (aunts and uncles, first cousins) marriages were still pretty common. It wasn't really until the rise of the eugenics movement that the modern taboos and legal prohibitions were established. I've been doing a fair bit of genealogy lately, and you can see on the family tree pretty clearly when people moved from from smaller, insulated communities to larger cities. Above that point, the tree fans out a lot less.
  - fullstop 2y ago
    > Everyone who marries marries their cousin, it's just a matter of degree. Right, clearly I meant close (1st and 2nd) cousins. At the end of the day, we are all related, but that's kind of a technicality.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  Also royalty. The instability of some European monarchs has been attributed to inbreeding.
trompetenaccoun 2y ago
Brits are well-known romantics even today but 19th century society was on a whole different level.

Epa095 2y ago

Well, this hit harder than I thought it would My God, it is intolerable to think of spending one’s whole life, like a neuter bee, working, working, & nothing after all. — No, no won’t do.

ty6853 2y ago
In those those days though I'm not sure the calculus of working for the sake of the children was quite the same. You might have kids, and then they work the farm, then you manage the farm and slowly the children take over the manual labor and hard work of it. In old age the investment in the children pays off and a reciprocal relationship is formed where you take care of the grandchildren and your own children take care of you. Now that is flipped on its head. The parent makes the lions share of the investment in the child, but the benefits of the child is largely socialized. Want daycare, food, recreational, extra-cirricular activities -- basically anything other than public schooling you pay taxes for already? Go fuck yourself. But once the children is grown up, well well well we are a society here! Tax the shit out of the kid, spread the social security benefits around to everyone including people that didn't raise any children. And if you directly want a piece of the investment from the children, as people got in the old days, well then go fuck yourself you greedy selfish bastard -- it is only morally right when all of society does the exact same thing to the kid. There is every possible incentive in today's society to encourage others to have kids, ensuring your own retirement, but to reneg on doing it yourself because some other poor bastard can front most the costs and then you can tax the shit out of the kid for your retirement / social benefits. I think children were a rational decision in Darwin's day, now they are definitely not, because you are on the sucker end of a tragedy of the commons deal.
- 369548684892826 2y ago
  None of this applies to Darwin though, he was wealthy and didn't need to think about "working the farm".
  - lukan 2y ago
    But apparently he needed to think about having to work for income to sustain a family.

jkingsman 2y ago

For such a giant of the scientific community, he was after all human. My two favorite journal entries: "But I am very poorly today & very stupid & hate everybody & everything." "I am going to write a little Book for Murray on orchids and today I hate them worse than everything."

rolisz 2y ago
Huh, I feel much closer to Darwin now
moffkalast 2y ago
"I cannot brain today, I have the dumb" Me too Charles, me too.
pfdietz 2y ago
He had chronic nausea (possibly abdominal migraine), so I'm not surprised he was feeling poorly.
zabzonk 2y ago
"I hate a Barnacle as no man ever did before"

boringg 2y ago

Children — (if it Please God) — Constant companion, (& friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, — object to be beloved & played with. — better than a dog anyhow.– Home, & someone to take care of house — Charms of music & female chit-chat. — These things good for one’s health. — """but terrible loss of time. —""" !!!! So ruthless in his calculus. One wonders if he was on the spectrum?

mdp2021 2y ago
> calculus It is calculus, it is performed like calculus - it has to.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

qoez 2y ago

I could have sworn that was Ben Franklin that wrote that

mdp2021 2y ago
Both Charles Darwin and Benjamin Franklin are quoted in informal Decision Theory. Both used pro-vs-cons tables to orient decision; Franklin also used weights. > When those difficult cases occur, they are difficult, chiefly because while we have them under consideration, all the reasons pro and con are not present to the mind at the same time; but sometimes some set present themselves, and at other times another, the first being out of sight. Hence the various purposes or inclinations that alternately prevail, and the uncertainty that perplexes us. // To get over this, my way is to divide half a sheet of paper by a line into two columns; writing over the one pro, and over the other con. Then during three or four days consideration, I put down under the different heads short hits of the different motives, that at different times occur to me, for or against the measure. // When I have thus got them all together in one view, I endeavor to estimate their respective weights; and where I find two, one on each side, that seem equal, I strike them both out. If I find a reason pro equal to two reasons con, I strike out the three. If I judge some two reasons con, equal to some three reasons pro, I strike out the five; and thus proceeding I find at length where the balance lies, and if, after a day or two of further consideration, nothing new that is of importance occurs on either side, I come to a determination accordingly