5 ms·

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 ha

by 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.
        bh23ha 17y ago
        Why do you think that this is a biological trait? I don't. It might be, it could be. Certainly religion, income, how you were raised, etc, all play a big role in how many children you want. But IF there is a genetic component to how many children you want, then I expect it to spread.

by bh23ha 17y ago

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.
      - bh23ha 17y ago
        Why do you think that this is a biological trait? I don't. It might be, it could be. Certainly religion, income, how you were raised, etc, all play a big role in how many children you want. But IF there is a genetic component to how many children you want, then I expect it to spread.