5 ms·

> Western countries are experiencing reproductive failures Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it'

by lutusp 12y ago

> Western countries are experiencing reproductive failures Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. Notwithstanding this, the idea of "restricting reproduction" is a non-starter in a civilized world. History shows this can't work if the power is given to governments. If people educate themselves and then choose, different story. Part of that education is to realize that the human population may already be three times larger than its long-term sustainable level: http://arachnoid.com/peak_people http://arachnoid.com/peak_people But the bottom line is that people must choose based on free will, not be "restricted" in their choices. If this isn't so, the cure will be worse than the disease.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its a failure of the country as an organism. Countries can have crime problems, economic problems, and reproductive problems. They're all measured statistically.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Its a failure of the country as an organism. So people aren't free to have ideas instead of children? The most important modern ideas do more to shape the modern world than any number of children -- except those children who have ideas.
sbierwagen 12y ago
Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing.
- lutusp 12y ago
  >> Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many >> children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. > Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. Only in a narrow biological sense. But remember that reproduction is not about individuals, it's about genes. If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes. > From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. False, if you are a member of a genetically related group and you contribute something other than sperm to the process. If this were not so, everyone past prime reproductive years, everyone not actively engaged in direct biological reproductive activity, would be useless and might as well die. This is clearly not the case. Imagine that you are a teacher or a scientist. Do I really have to explain this?
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes." In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes (hypothesize, say, a gene that contributes to idea-having and ideas that benefit idea-havers). Or, of course, if he helps his close relatives in other ways. But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for - though on a values level, I'd certainly like to encourage it! Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes ... Yes, which is why I emphasized membership in a genetic cohort. But think about that cohort -- being a human distinguishes you from the cockroaches competing for the same resources. So if you only taught people how to kill cockroaches and nothing else, you would have contributed to the fitness of the human genotype. > But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for ... On the contrary, see above. Imagine that someone does nothing except make fire manageable to his tribe, and the fire technology serves a number of beneficial purposes like cooking and warding off predators after nightfall. It's also been suggested that an altruistic act like saving an unrelated human at some personal risk, can be explained this way, rather than by way of a religious or other explanation. > Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes. Memes and genes are linked.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. On the contrary, how many children one has is ultimately selected by evolution. For a given species in a given environment, there is an optimal number of offspring. Too few or too many, and the trait is selected against. This is the simplest calculus of natural selection. What this means is there is no "reproductive failure" in the sense you propose, there are only the blind choices natural selection makes. And the successful blind choice is not always "as many as possible", not in any real environment. > A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing. So tell me the names of Einstein's children. Give up? They're special and general relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look great in family group portraits. My point? In modern times, ideas have a life of their own. Some people choose to have ideas instead of children. Some of those ideas have an influence that no child could possibly equal.
  - sbierwagen 12y ago
    On the contrary, how many children one has is ultimately selected by evolution. For a given species in a given environment, there is an optimal number of offspring. Too few or too many, and the trait is selected against. No adaptation ever selects for zero children. (Edit: replace gene with adaptation)
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      That is clearly false. Notwithstanding mutations that aren't going to stick around, you also have to contend with non-reproductive castes in social insects.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        ...and in social people!
        dllthomas 12y ago
        We don't have "non-reproductive castes" in quite the same sense...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing. Culture is memetic, species is genetic. As long as the species is growing, its quite possible that the culture that spends more effort spreading its memes will be more successful than those that focus that energy on biological reproduction. This might be biologically problematic in the long run if the culture didn't include a feedback mechanism that would lead to a shift in priorities if the species as a whole was no longer sustainable (as might be the case if that culture had become so dominant that there was no outside culture within the species to acquire converts from), but its certainly not the case that the "culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing", and it could quite plausibly be the alternative that, in the face of competing ideas, the culture that focuses energy on reproduction at the expense of reducing energy devoted to promoting its ideas has chosen to stop existing as a culture.
  - sbierwagen 12y ago
    EDIT: This comment is a little fuzzy in places on the distinction between a culture, and a member of a culture, vs a species, and a member of a species. (Evolution always acts individually, and an adaption always works to increase the fitness of an individual organism) I'd clean it up, but this is a comment thread on a submission with 3 votes, so approximately nobody will ever see it... --- Alrighty, let's formalize this a little. A successful culture is one that increases the frequency of its memes in the population. (Precisely analogous to biological organisms, genes, and the genepool) A society wants the frequency of its memes to hit 100% of the population. (To the extent a society "wants" anything, sins of teleology, etc) Ok. To accomplish this goal, we have three strategies. 1.) Produce children, and inculcate them with the culture's memes. 2.) Instead of having children, infect other organisms with your culture's memes. (The Hollywood model) 3.) Instead of having children or making movies, increase the frequency of your memes by *reducing* the frequ- ency of competing memes, by killing their carriers. (The genocide model) Any given culture is pursuing all three strategies simultaneously, of course, but with differing priority for each. It's quite possible for a vigorous new culture/species to arise, have a population boom, and "evolve to extinction". (http://lesswrong.com/lw/l5/evolving_to_extinction/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/l5/evolving_to_extinction/) A series of adaptations, each of which increase the individual fitness of each individual member/organism, but inevitably lead to the population declining, and the culture/species ceasing to exist. The canonical example are the Shakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers) who were quite active during the 19th century, but whose memes required celibacy of its members, and so the entire culture lasted for only one lifetime. Evolution doesn't care. Nothing requires that an entire culture/species abruptly switch memes/genes when an omniscient observer notices they're they're climbing a local maxima.
- mullingitover 12y ago
  > Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. No, biological reproductive failure is literally defined as either infertility or sterility. > A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing. Cultures don't have children, people do. You can be a culturally midwestern white and phenotypically east asian [1]. I suspect you mean "race" here, which of course is merely a social construct. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ge4F4E9JE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ge4F4E9JE

by lutusp 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Its a failure of the country as an organism. Countries can have crime problems, economic problems, and reproductive problems. They're all measured statistically.

lutusp 12y ago
> Its a failure of the country as an organism. So people aren't free to have ideas instead of children? The most important modern ideas do more to shape the modern world than any number of children -- except those children who have ideas.

sbierwagen 12y ago

Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing.

lutusp 12y ago
>> Umm, people choosing not to have children (or as many >> children) is not a "reproductive failure", it's a choice. > Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. Only in a narrow biological sense. But remember that reproduction is not about individuals, it's about genes. If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes. > From an evolutionary standpoint, choosing not to have children is exactly the same as choosing to press a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. False, if you are a member of a genetically related group and you contribute something other than sperm to the process. If this were not so, everyone past prime reproductive years, everyone not actively engaged in direct biological reproductive activity, would be useless and might as well die. This is clearly not the case. Imagine that you are a teacher or a scientist. Do I really have to explain this?
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "If someone has ideas instead of children, he still propagates his genes." In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes (hypothesize, say, a gene that contributes to idea-having and ideas that benefit idea-havers). Or, of course, if he helps his close relatives in other ways. But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for - though on a values level, I'd certainly like to encourage it! Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes.
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > In terms of selection pressures, my understanding is that this is only true if the ideas differentially help others with genes like his more than those with less similar genomes ... Yes, which is why I emphasized membership in a genetic cohort. But think about that cohort -- being a human distinguishes you from the cockroaches competing for the same resources. So if you only taught people how to kill cockroaches and nothing else, you would have contributed to the fitness of the human genotype. > But helping "the species as a whole" is not something that is selected for ... On the contrary, see above. Imagine that someone does nothing except make fire manageable to his tribe, and the fire technology serves a number of beneficial purposes like cooking and warding off predators after nightfall. It's also been suggested that an altruistic act like saving an unrelated human at some personal risk, can be explained this way, rather than by way of a religious or other explanation. > Of course, if someone has ideas instead of genes, he certainly propagates his memes. Memes and genes are linked.
lutusp 12y ago
> Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. On the contrary, how many children one has is ultimately selected by evolution. For a given species in a given environment, there is an optimal number of offspring. Too few or too many, and the trait is selected against. This is the simplest calculus of natural selection. What this means is there is no "reproductive failure" in the sense you propose, there are only the blind choices natural selection makes. And the successful blind choice is not always "as many as possible", not in any real environment. > A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing. So tell me the names of Einstein's children. Give up? They're special and general relativity, and the photoelectric effect. They look great in family group portraits. My point? In modern times, ideas have a life of their own. Some people choose to have ideas instead of children. Some of those ideas have an influence that no child could possibly equal.
- sbierwagen 12y ago
  On the contrary, how many children one has is ultimately selected by evolution. For a given species in a given environment, there is an optimal number of offspring. Too few or too many, and the trait is selected against. No adaptation ever selects for zero children. (Edit: replace gene with adaptation)
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    That is clearly false. Notwithstanding mutations that aren't going to stick around, you also have to contend with non-reproductive castes in social insects.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      ...and in social people!
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        We don't have "non-reproductive castes" in quite the same sense...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing. Culture is memetic, species is genetic. As long as the species is growing, its quite possible that the culture that spends more effort spreading its memes will be more successful than those that focus that energy on biological reproduction. This might be biologically problematic in the long run if the culture didn't include a feedback mechanism that would lead to a shift in priorities if the species as a whole was no longer sustainable (as might be the case if that culture had become so dominant that there was no outside culture within the species to acquire converts from), but its certainly not the case that the "culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing", and it could quite plausibly be the alternative that, in the face of competing ideas, the culture that focuses energy on reproduction at the expense of reducing energy devoted to promoting its ideas has chosen to stop existing as a culture.
- sbierwagen 12y ago
  EDIT: This comment is a little fuzzy in places on the distinction between a culture, and a member of a culture, vs a species, and a member of a species. (Evolution always acts individually, and an adaption always works to increase the fitness of an individual organism) I'd clean it up, but this is a comment thread on a submission with 3 votes, so approximately nobody will ever see it... --- Alrighty, let's formalize this a little. A successful culture is one that increases the frequency of its memes in the population. (Precisely analogous to biological organisms, genes, and the genepool) A society wants the frequency of its memes to hit 100% of the population. (To the extent a society "wants" anything, sins of teleology, etc) Ok. To accomplish this goal, we have three strategies. 1.) Produce children, and inculcate them with the culture's memes. 2.) Instead of having children, infect other organisms with your culture's memes. (The Hollywood model) 3.) Instead of having children or making movies, increase the frequency of your memes by *reducing* the frequ- ency of competing memes, by killing their carriers. (The genocide model) Any given culture is pursuing all three strategies simultaneously, of course, but with differing priority for each. It's quite possible for a vigorous new culture/species to arise, have a population boom, and "evolve to extinction". (http://lesswrong.com/lw/l5/evolving_to_extinction/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/l5/evolving_to_extinction/) A series of adaptations, each of which increase the individual fitness of each individual member/organism, but inevitably lead to the population declining, and the culture/species ceasing to exist. The canonical example are the Shakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers) who were quite active during the 19th century, but whose memes required celibacy of its members, and so the entire culture lasted for only one lifetime. Evolution doesn't care. Nothing requires that an entire culture/species abruptly switch memes/genes when an omniscient observer notices they're they're climbing a local maxima.
mullingitover 12y ago
> Biologically, it's still reproductive failure. No, biological reproductive failure is literally defined as either infertility or sterility. > A culture that chooses to not have children is a culture that has decided to stop existing. Cultures don't have children, people do. You can be a culturally midwestern white and phenotypically east asian [1]. I suspect you mean "race" here, which of course is merely a social construct. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ge4F4E9JE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_Ge4F4E9JE