6 ms·

Is it too early to start a media panic about the shrinking humanity? In all seriousness, I've always looked at birth control and education and affluence as a v

by bh23ha 17y ago

Is it too early to start a media panic about the shrinking humanity? In all seriousness, I've always looked at birth control and education and affluence as a virus which drastically reduces fertility. But obviously some people, besides their sex drive, have another not so common drive. Despite money, education and condoms they really, really want, not sex, but kids. And over time this trait will become more widespread in the population. We better have colonized space by then.

mseebach 17y ago
What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Another trait is that of children-less lifestyles (sexual, medical or otherwise). If we're to keep up with the replacement-rate, that obviously means that someone needs to have more kids.
- bh23ha 17y ago
  Think of it as a virus that impacts fertility. Some people will be child-less, others will have just one, maybe 2 kids. A few will strongly want to and will have 3,4 and more. It's basic natural selection in practice. Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    You just restate your theory as fact. What makes you think that wealthy families in developed countries with suddenly decide to have many more children? The article offers a theory that in rural societies, children are basically life-insurance, and the more the better (probably to a limit). But a tractor is much more reliable than a kid, and as a family grows wealthy, kids turn into "liabilities" that you have to provide food, shelter and education for, with little in return (not talking about love and family, talking about having someone to give you food and shelter when you're old and/or sick).
    - bh23ha 17y ago
      I am not implying anyone will suddenly decide to have many more children. I know wealthy, well of, educated people with 5 kids, who have gone on to fertility treatments to get another couple as they age. It's rare but it's not unknown. There ARE wealthy families in developed countries who absolutely had to, and do have, lots of kids. That's not speculation or conjecture.
      - mseebach 17y ago
        You wrote: > Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around. Why will things turn around? Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant?
        bh23ha 17y ago
        Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant? I wish I could make this point more clear, but words fail me. From some of your discussions with others in this thread, I see they are also having difficulty communicating the basics of evolution. Pardon me, I have to abandon this discussion now.
        mseebach 17y ago
        OK, now I've probably got it narrowed down to misunderstanding the word trait. I'm not a native English speaker, so please excuse the confusion. I do understand why a biological hereditary preference to have many kids will multiply quickly, but my question is: Why do you think that this is a biological trait? The statistics in the article seems to suggest that we adjust reproduction to environmental factors, in this case wealth and urbanisation, which also makes sense from a evolution perspective: if we reproduce too quickly, there won't be enough resources to go around.
        17y ago
- xiaoma 17y ago
  >What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Evolution. Right now, most people aren't that well adapted (in a Darwinian sense) to life in an affluent society. There's no reason to assume this will always be the case. The current speed of human evolution is over 100 times what it was in prehistoric times. Extreme environmental changes invariably lead to evolutionary changes.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    > Evolution What biological advantage does a large family have over a small family in an affluent society?
    - Freebytes 17y ago
      The large family will have more offspring which will result in more offspring. If this is a biologically motivated desire to have more children, there will be more children with that desire to produce more offspring, and the cycle will continue.
      - mseebach 17y ago
        That's true, but that's a pretty big assumption. In past agrarian cultures, a large family wasn't just an advantage, it was required due to high mortality. My girlfriends mother is one of eight, all girls. None of her aunts, and none of their children have an above-average number of children, and between them I think they're below average. On the other hand, my sister and I are out of a ridiculously small family, and she just had her third baby. Plans for more are uncertain, but not ruled out. It's a sample of two, but if nothing else, it shows that if it's a biological trait, it's pretty weak.
    - fh 17y ago
      For the species or society, likely none. But consider the individual gene. Assume there's a gene X, that causes a desire to have many children. Let's say people with gene X have twice as many children on average as people without it. The society is affluent, so all of those children survive and spread the gene further. Eventually gene X will become dominant in the gene pool. (The fate of such a gene is quite different if food is scarce and there's a danger of starvation, which has been the case for most of human history.)
- randallsquared 17y ago
  What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. We do know of examples of high-income (and high-education) groups with high fertility, though. Mormons come to mind. There was a recent discussion about this I found interesting here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html
  - mseebach 17y ago
    Yeah, of course. But I don't see any indications that that kind of lifestyles are on the rise -- on the contrary, they seem to be increasingly at odds with "modern society".
    - ptomato 17y ago
      Except to the extent that they are inherited traits, which could be significant.
    - donaldc 17y ago
      If the lifestyles you're speaking of involve a significantly higher-than-average birthrate, then they're almost by definition on the rise...
- araneae 17y ago
  If the desire to have children has a genetic component, and those with this genetic component are more likely to have offspring that survive until adulthood, then the trait will spread. Given that plenty of heritable traits (like religiosity) are correlated with increased brood size, I'd say it's pretty likely. Also, given that in first world countries even the offspring of poorer folks survive to adulthood, that removes any benefit of giving birth to fewer children.
tybris 17y ago
Mankind evolves itself.
- bh23ha 17y ago
  Hey, we're not the only ones. A known form of specialisation is when a mutant female prefers a slightly different kind of male. And her daughters have the same preference, and eventually you end up with reproductively isolated populations.
  - nfnaaron 17y ago
    I'm slightly different. Maybe I should go for the mutants.

by bh23ha 17y ago

mseebach 17y ago

What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Another trait is that of children-less lifestyles (sexual, medical or otherwise). If we're to keep up with the replacement-rate, that obviously means that someone needs to have more kids.

bh23ha 17y ago
Think of it as a virus that impacts fertility. Some people will be child-less, others will have just one, maybe 2 kids. A few will strongly want to and will have 3,4 and more. It's basic natural selection in practice. Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around.
- mseebach 17y ago
  You just restate your theory as fact. What makes you think that wealthy families in developed countries with suddenly decide to have many more children? The article offers a theory that in rural societies, children are basically life-insurance, and the more the better (probably to a limit). But a tractor is much more reliable than a kid, and as a family grows wealthy, kids turn into "liabilities" that you have to provide food, shelter and education for, with little in return (not talking about love and family, talking about having someone to give you food and shelter when you're old and/or sick).
  - bh23ha 17y ago
    I am not implying anyone will suddenly decide to have many more children. I know wealthy, well of, educated people with 5 kids, who have gone on to fertility treatments to get another couple as they age. It's rare but it's not unknown. There ARE wealthy families in developed countries who absolutely had to, and do have, lots of kids. That's not speculation or conjecture.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      You wrote: > Wealth and the pill are still very recent, fertility will stay low in the industrialized world for quite a while, a few generations at least, but things will turn around. Why will things turn around? Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant?
      - bh23ha 17y ago
        Of course there are wealthy families that have many children, but why will exactly that trait become dominant? I wish I could make this point more clear, but words fail me. From some of your discussions with others in this thread, I see they are also having difficulty communicating the basics of evolution. Pardon me, I have to abandon this discussion now.
        mseebach 17y ago
        OK, now I've probably got it narrowed down to misunderstanding the word trait. I'm not a native English speaker, so please excuse the confusion. I do understand why a biological hereditary preference to have many kids will multiply quickly, but my question is: Why do you think that this is a biological trait? The statistics in the article seems to suggest that we adjust reproduction to environmental factors, in this case wealth and urbanisation, which also makes sense from a evolution perspective: if we reproduce too quickly, there won't be enough resources to go around.
        17y ago
xiaoma 17y ago
>What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. Evolution. Right now, most people aren't that well adapted (in a Darwinian sense) to life in an affluent society. There's no reason to assume this will always be the case. The current speed of human evolution is over 100 times what it was in prehistoric times. Extreme environmental changes invariably lead to evolutionary changes.
- mseebach 17y ago
  > Evolution What biological advantage does a large family have over a small family in an affluent society?
  - Freebytes 17y ago
    The large family will have more offspring which will result in more offspring. If this is a biologically motivated desire to have more children, there will be more children with that desire to produce more offspring, and the cycle will continue.
    - mseebach 17y ago
      That's true, but that's a pretty big assumption. In past agrarian cultures, a large family wasn't just an advantage, it was required due to high mortality. My girlfriends mother is one of eight, all girls. None of her aunts, and none of their children have an above-average number of children, and between them I think they're below average. On the other hand, my sister and I are out of a ridiculously small family, and she just had her third baby. Plans for more are uncertain, but not ruled out. It's a sample of two, but if nothing else, it shows that if it's a biological trait, it's pretty weak.
  - fh 17y ago
    For the species or society, likely none. But consider the individual gene. Assume there's a gene X, that causes a desire to have many children. Let's say people with gene X have twice as many children on average as people without it. The society is affluent, so all of those children survive and spread the gene further. Eventually gene X will become dominant in the gene pool. (The fate of such a gene is quite different if food is scarce and there's a danger of starvation, which has been the case for most of human history.)
randallsquared 17y ago
What makes you think that this not so common (as you yourself call it) drive will become more widespread? The graph in the article suggest a very strong correlation between wealth and low fertility. We do know of examples of high-income (and high-education) groups with high fertility, though. Mormons come to mind. There was a recent discussion about this I found interesting here: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/09/future-fertility.html
- mseebach 17y ago
  Yeah, of course. But I don't see any indications that that kind of lifestyles are on the rise -- on the contrary, they seem to be increasingly at odds with "modern society".
  - ptomato 17y ago
    Except to the extent that they are inherited traits, which could be significant.
  - donaldc 17y ago
    If the lifestyles you're speaking of involve a significantly higher-than-average birthrate, then they're almost by definition on the rise...
araneae 17y ago
If the desire to have children has a genetic component, and those with this genetic component are more likely to have offspring that survive until adulthood, then the trait will spread. Given that plenty of heritable traits (like religiosity) are correlated with increased brood size, I'd say it's pretty likely. Also, given that in first world countries even the offspring of poorer folks survive to adulthood, that removes any benefit of giving birth to fewer children.

tybris 17y ago

Mankind evolves itself.

bh23ha 17y ago
Hey, we're not the only ones. A known form of specialisation is when a mutant female prefers a slightly different kind of male. And her daughters have the same preference, and eventually you end up with reproductively isolated populations.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  I'm slightly different. Maybe I should go for the mutants.