3 ms·

>> 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

by 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.
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "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." From a selection perspective, the only meaningful way to be "members of your genetic cohort" is to have a differentially higher chance of possessing the gene in question. From the point of view of a newly-mutated-and-unique gene-to-help, there is no difference between cockroaches and humans by virtue of their genomes alone. (Humans are, of course, more likely to be of help - and also more likely to be in direct competition - all of which have tremendous ramifications... but not in a different sense than any other feature of the environment). Edited to add: In a limited population, of course, it quickly follows that competing alleles are genuinely competing. In a population that is able to grow fast enough indefinitely, I am not at all confident that that continues to hold. I am not sure where humanity falls on that spectrum (if spectrum there be, rather than point) - but my understanding of your position is that you'd prefer we more approximate the former than the latter anyway (the latter being plausibly impossible anyway).

by lutusp 12y ago

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.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  "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." From a selection perspective, the only meaningful way to be "members of your genetic cohort" is to have a differentially higher chance of possessing the gene in question. From the point of view of a newly-mutated-and-unique gene-to-help, there is no difference between cockroaches and humans by virtue of their genomes alone. (Humans are, of course, more likely to be of help - and also more likely to be in direct competition - all of which have tremendous ramifications... but not in a different sense than any other feature of the environment). Edited to add: In a limited population, of course, it quickly follows that competing alleles are genuinely competing. In a population that is able to grow fast enough indefinitely, I am not at all confident that that continues to hold. I am not sure where humanity falls on that spectrum (if spectrum there be, rather than point) - but my understanding of your position is that you'd prefer we more approximate the former than the latter anyway (the latter being plausibly impossible anyway).