6 ms·

Who is to say children today will have children of their own tomorrow? People who are choosing not to have kids “leaving the gene pool” (you say it as if they a

Who is to say children today will have children of their own tomorrow? People who are choosing not to have kids “leaving the gene pool” (you say it as if they are some filth to be done away with) doesn’t change anything.

monero-xmr 2y ago
If you don’t reproduce then your genes are not passed on. You have self-selected not to be part of the human race any longer. My hunch is that the people who still decide to reproduce, despite all the reasons people who advocate for not having children talk about, likely have some sort of genetic predisposition for reproduction - a strong innate need. After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the reproducers.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- skissane 2y ago
  Not just in terms of selecting genes, but also selecting cultures. If allele A causes increased desire to reproduce than allele B, then in a society in which reproduction is viewed as an optional extra, all else being equal, allele A is likely to predominate allele B over time. Conversely, in a more traditional society in which everyone is subject to a strong social expectation to reproduce, allele A would have far less of an advantage over allele B. An allele might lead to increased reproduction indirectly rather than directly. For example, if an allele makes a person more likely to be religious, and if religious people are more likely to have kids, then even though that allele does not directly impact desire to reproduce, it may be selected for due to its indirect impact on reproduction. That's genetics; coming to culture: if subculture A puts higher emphasis on reproduction than subculture B, then all else being equal, in the long-run subculture A is likely to outnumber subculture B, irrespective of any genetic factors. However, defections from subculture A to subculture B may erase much of its innate demographic advantage. This suggests in the long-run, the most demographically successful subcultures will be those which combine sustained high fertility with sustained insularity (social barriers to defection to other subcultures)–which is exactly what we observe with groups like the Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews.
  - monero-xmr 2y ago
    It’s surprising to me why my parent comment was down voted. It’s simple biology and mathematics. If you want culture to survive (if what is most important to you is cultural values) you must have a society with children in order to impart those values. There is no future for a society that discourages children.
    - DavidPiper 2y ago
      > After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the reproducers. I suspect it was downvoted because that line suggests dismissal or contempt for people who don't have children. There are many people across all generations who haven't had children (either by choice or because they were unable for various reasons), and their lifespans and social contributions are no more or less on average compared to people that do have children.
      - quesera 2y ago
        Ironically, "breeder" is (or used to be?) a slang denigration of heterosexuals, within the homosexual community. I didn't interpret the original comment as contemptuous of either opinion. But it is undeniable that both groups are sensitive about their choices (or unfortunate inability to choose differently).
- fallingsquirrel 2y ago
  What a wild take. This is like claiming gay people will "die off" in 2 generations because they don't reproduce. 1000 years ago some subset of people chose not to have children, and humanity did just fine, and that same group of so-called "non-breeders" still exists today. Therefore we can conclude it's not purely a matter of genetics. There are a huge number of reasons people make that choice. People even change their minds during their life. It's not just a YES/NO switch in your genetic code somewhere.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > 1000 years ago some subset of people chose not to have children, and humanity did just fine, and that same group of so-called "non-breeders" still exists today. There have always been, and always will be, people who don’t have kids, for a whole host of reasons. But that’s not the argument (or at least, not the steelman version of it, as opposed to the strawman one) - the argument is that if there are certain heritable traits that discourage people from having children, then all else being equal, natural selection will cause the frequency of those traits to decline over time, albeit often not to zero. The all else being equal part is very important. In a society with strong social pressure to reproduce, a trait which makes people less likely to want children may not be strongly selected against - because the social pressure to reproduce means desire to have children only has a small impact on the odds of actually having them - whereas in a society which is much more individualist, it may have much more of an impact, so the selective pressure against that trait may be much stronger. And of course, a trait which produces less desire for children might nonetheless be selected for because it produces some other countervailing advantage Still, I think the argument does have some weight - that in contemporary Western society where reproduction is far more of a voluntary choice than it once was, biological and cultural factors which encourage reproduction are going to be selected for to a much greater degree than they were in the less individualist societies of decades and centuries past, where less such encouragement was needed
  - quesera 2y ago
    Both things must be true. On the one hand, you'd expect humans (animals) to have completely bred out all forms of infertility -- except that there are non-heritable causes of infertility. (In fact, all causes of infertility must be non-heritable, or at least not inherited! :) On the other hand, it's surely true that characteristics which deprioritize or diminish the likelihood of reproduction are bred out, however incompletely. Whether it's a sense of taste that enjoys poisons, a risk-taking brain that kicks in before fertility, homosexuality (in males at least), or just not wanting children. These characteristics are bred down to a sustainable level, obviously. But they are clearly not bred out fully, nor are they consistently bred "up".
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  That isn't really how that works at all. If you have a brother and a sister who both have male and female children, that's basically the same genetic line going on. The only exception I can think of is if you have some mutation they didn't. But in that case if you're aware of the mutation the consequences are likely to be awful, which is a great case for not having biological children.
- S_Bear 2y ago
  Since my broken body is the equivalent to a genetic warranty replacement, I'm more than happy to leave the future gene pool.
randomdata 2y ago
The people of typical child rearing age today grew up in the "16 and pregnant" era, where having children was demonized. They were told that to have children was a failing, and that they should focus on their career instead – that was the key to a successful, happy life. Social pressure is a hell of a drug. Is that fashion going to remain, though? Everything goes out of style eventually. I think we are already seeing some cracks where people are starting to question why having children is so "wrong". Nothing happens overnight, but I'm not so sure the children today will grow up in that same environment.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I think the economics trump the social factors mostly. It seems to take ever more education in order to grasp at an ever more ephemeral stability, and children need a decade or two of stability when growing up. I can’t imagine anyone will be encouraging their 16 year old daughters to have children any time soon.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    It is true that once you are rich enough you no longer need children to help support the family unit as was an imperative historically (and still in the poor parts of the world), so we cannot discount the economics. That is no doubt why it became the fashion. It was a demonstration of how rich we've become. A display of human progress and achievement. But I see some change in sentiment around questioning what good is being rich if you can't enjoy it with your children. It is not happening overnight by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the tides are slowly starting to turn.
    - silverquiet 2y ago
      I look back at Leo Tolstoy's "A Confession" and I think that it's a bit more complicated than that. He summed up my own thoughts quite well more than a century before I was even born. > No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false. The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing -- art as I called it -- were no longer sweet to me. "Family"... said I to myself. But my family -- wife and children -- are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death.”

monero-xmr 2y ago

If you don’t reproduce then your genes are not passed on. You have self-selected not to be part of the human race any longer. My hunch is that the people who still decide to reproduce, despite all the reasons people who advocate for not having children talk about, likely have some sort of genetic predisposition for reproduction - a strong innate need. After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the reproducers.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
skissane 2y ago
Not just in terms of selecting genes, but also selecting cultures. If allele A causes increased desire to reproduce than allele B, then in a society in which reproduction is viewed as an optional extra, all else being equal, allele A is likely to predominate allele B over time. Conversely, in a more traditional society in which everyone is subject to a strong social expectation to reproduce, allele A would have far less of an advantage over allele B. An allele might lead to increased reproduction indirectly rather than directly. For example, if an allele makes a person more likely to be religious, and if religious people are more likely to have kids, then even though that allele does not directly impact desire to reproduce, it may be selected for due to its indirect impact on reproduction. That's genetics; coming to culture: if subculture A puts higher emphasis on reproduction than subculture B, then all else being equal, in the long-run subculture A is likely to outnumber subculture B, irrespective of any genetic factors. However, defections from subculture A to subculture B may erase much of its innate demographic advantage. This suggests in the long-run, the most demographically successful subcultures will be those which combine sustained high fertility with sustained insularity (social barriers to defection to other subcultures)–which is exactly what we observe with groups like the Amish and ultra-Orthodox Jews.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  It’s surprising to me why my parent comment was down voted. It’s simple biology and mathematics. If you want culture to survive (if what is most important to you is cultural values) you must have a society with children in order to impart those values. There is no future for a society that discourages children.
  - DavidPiper 2y ago
    > After all the non-breeders die off, the future belongs to the reproducers. I suspect it was downvoted because that line suggests dismissal or contempt for people who don't have children. There are many people across all generations who haven't had children (either by choice or because they were unable for various reasons), and their lifespans and social contributions are no more or less on average compared to people that do have children.
    - quesera 2y ago
      Ironically, "breeder" is (or used to be?) a slang denigration of heterosexuals, within the homosexual community. I didn't interpret the original comment as contemptuous of either opinion. But it is undeniable that both groups are sensitive about their choices (or unfortunate inability to choose differently).
fallingsquirrel 2y ago
What a wild take. This is like claiming gay people will "die off" in 2 generations because they don't reproduce. 1000 years ago some subset of people chose not to have children, and humanity did just fine, and that same group of so-called "non-breeders" still exists today. Therefore we can conclude it's not purely a matter of genetics. There are a huge number of reasons people make that choice. People even change their minds during their life. It's not just a YES/NO switch in your genetic code somewhere.
- skissane 2y ago
  > 1000 years ago some subset of people chose not to have children, and humanity did just fine, and that same group of so-called "non-breeders" still exists today. There have always been, and always will be, people who don’t have kids, for a whole host of reasons. But that’s not the argument (or at least, not the steelman version of it, as opposed to the strawman one) - the argument is that if there are certain heritable traits that discourage people from having children, then all else being equal, natural selection will cause the frequency of those traits to decline over time, albeit often not to zero. The all else being equal part is very important. In a society with strong social pressure to reproduce, a trait which makes people less likely to want children may not be strongly selected against - because the social pressure to reproduce means desire to have children only has a small impact on the odds of actually having them - whereas in a society which is much more individualist, it may have much more of an impact, so the selective pressure against that trait may be much stronger. And of course, a trait which produces less desire for children might nonetheless be selected for because it produces some other countervailing advantage Still, I think the argument does have some weight - that in contemporary Western society where reproduction is far more of a voluntary choice than it once was, biological and cultural factors which encourage reproduction are going to be selected for to a much greater degree than they were in the less individualist societies of decades and centuries past, where less such encouragement was needed
- quesera 2y ago
  Both things must be true. On the one hand, you'd expect humans (animals) to have completely bred out all forms of infertility -- except that there are non-heritable causes of infertility. (In fact, all causes of infertility must be non-heritable, or at least not inherited! :) On the other hand, it's surely true that characteristics which deprioritize or diminish the likelihood of reproduction are bred out, however incompletely. Whether it's a sense of taste that enjoys poisons, a risk-taking brain that kicks in before fertility, homosexuality (in males at least), or just not wanting children. These characteristics are bred down to a sustainable level, obviously. But they are clearly not bred out fully, nor are they consistently bred "up".
sidewndr46 2y ago
That isn't really how that works at all. If you have a brother and a sister who both have male and female children, that's basically the same genetic line going on. The only exception I can think of is if you have some mutation they didn't. But in that case if you're aware of the mutation the consequences are likely to be awful, which is a great case for not having biological children.
S_Bear 2y ago
Since my broken body is the equivalent to a genetic warranty replacement, I'm more than happy to leave the future gene pool.

randomdata 2y ago

The people of typical child rearing age today grew up in the "16 and pregnant" era, where having children was demonized. They were told that to have children was a failing, and that they should focus on their career instead – that was the key to a successful, happy life. Social pressure is a hell of a drug. Is that fashion going to remain, though? Everything goes out of style eventually. I think we are already seeing some cracks where people are starting to question why having children is so "wrong". Nothing happens overnight, but I'm not so sure the children today will grow up in that same environment.

silverquiet 2y ago
I think the economics trump the social factors mostly. It seems to take ever more education in order to grasp at an ever more ephemeral stability, and children need a decade or two of stability when growing up. I can’t imagine anyone will be encouraging their 16 year old daughters to have children any time soon.
- randomdata 2y ago
  It is true that once you are rich enough you no longer need children to help support the family unit as was an imperative historically (and still in the poor parts of the world), so we cannot discount the economics. That is no doubt why it became the fashion. It was a demonstration of how rich we've become. A display of human progress and achievement. But I see some change in sentiment around questioning what good is being rich if you can't enjoy it with your children. It is not happening overnight by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the tides are slowly starting to turn.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    I look back at Leo Tolstoy's "A Confession" and I think that it's a bit more complicated than that. He summed up my own thoughts quite well more than a century before I was even born. > No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false. The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing -- art as I called it -- were no longer sweet to me. "Family"... said I to myself. But my family -- wife and children -- are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death.”