human evolution

File: a09fig03.jpg (35KB, 406x256px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 406x256px

Another odd evolutionary argument I see is that choosing to not have children will lower the population. This is incredibly naive and it shocks me that I see people with PhDs spouting such nonsense. What happens when an animal that is genetically primed to have few children does not reproduce? the resources and space that would have gone to their progeny now go to children that are genetically primed to have more children. instead.

which is a better approach to population control:
a) introduce a subset of animal that has large territories and few children and aggressively kills intruders. this leads to few animals over a large space
b) introduce a subset of animal that pumps out tons of kids and has tiny territories. this leads to many animals in a small space

if you were in charge of population control, which would you rather select for to ultimately lead to population decline? do you think that killing off the animals that have small number of children and large territories will ultimately decrease the population? briefly maybe, but now the other subset will utilize the free territories and explode the population.

>>8328256
> the resources and space that would have gone to their progeny now go to children that are genetically primed to have more children. instead.
Human reproduction in modern society is a bit more complicated... adults in countries like italy or japan are not not having children due to some spatial limiting factor

There are no selective pressures in first world countries.

>>8328246
>but quickly those women who are genetically primed to desire children even after attaining a high education will out produce those whose genes are unable to handle the stress of education and childbearing. Their children will take over, and education will no longer be a negative selective pressure as the population will have adapted

This simply ignores that the subset of the poorly educated reproduce rapidly all the way. Genes that enable high performance in education are selected against constantly by the fertility gap. To say "The future belongs to the smart because at some point they will stop suffering this disadvantage" is absurd in the face of the facts as they are now - the evolutionary pressure is favoring low performance, who suffer no disadvantage at all.

Fun fact: some of the genes that have undergone the most change in the past few thousand years are the olfactory receptor genes. Why? Because how you smell strongly affects mate selection.

>>8328765
Yes there are. The fact that antisocial speeds don't get laid is a selective pressure, for example.

>>8328246
Yeah look it's somewhat of a problem that we're basically encouraging plebs to multiply at such a high rate, and high IQ individuals to forego child rearing until their mid-30s (fertility drops hard after 30-35)
>everyone knows that ultimately, the only thing that stabilizes a population is reaching carrying capacity of the environment.
Yes this is essentially true. Although what's going to happen is we overshoot and there's a rebound where billions die of starvation/war.

>current year
>still beleving in evolution

>>8328246
How about
>Human language evolved as a result of selective pressure for communication
When will this meme die?

>>8328246
Evolution is a lie