The sad part is that the disincentivization mostly affects the most educated people. If you're educated and know how fucked we are as a species, you tend not to add to the problem. So what ends up...
The sad part is that the disincentivization mostly affects the most educated people. If you're educated and know how fucked we are as a species, you tend not to add to the problem.
So what ends up happening is that the least educated of us reproduce more and while some will end up educated, most will not, just maintaining the current status quo in america of the rich feeding off the poor's ignorance.
I guess all I'm saying is we're all fucked and that I am also not hopeful.
I'd fundamentally disagree. The lion's share of progress humanity is undergoing, is directed to decreasing suffering, comes it to success or not. As we are still animals evolved in constant...
To live is to suffer
I'd fundamentally disagree. The lion's share of progress humanity is undergoing, is directed to decreasing suffering, comes it to success or not.
As we are still animals evolved in constant danger, we see bad things around very well, especially with help of the internet. But on the large scale humans are good, and they also strive for less suffering and more fun in life.
Even such a simple thing as going to the bathroom at night in winter now is no suffering, unlike just a couple hundred years ago. And you can bring phone to even make it fun.
I'm trying to not be rude but let's refrain from declaring the whole human existence suffering just because personal or some societal issues.
Thanks for explanation. Regarding small sufferings, I'd offer a way of thinking that could ease them. There's nothing absolutely reliable in daily life, everything has a risk of failure. Cars,...
Thanks for explanation. Regarding small sufferings, I'd offer a way of thinking that could ease them. There's nothing absolutely reliable in daily life, everything has a risk of failure. Cars, bank accounts, health, etc. One way to deal with that is some kind of minimalism, to own less things and have less cumulative risk of failures. The other, much more practical way is to expect these failures. They can happen at any moment, that's the mathematical truth. Knowledge of that not only can remove a lot of suffering from the occurrence of the failure, but also helps acting preemptively, to have backups. Do I have a spare account with money or cash just in case? Even if not, being prepared means a lot. And troubles won't cascade and stress you out so much, maybe.
The issue is we're going to have serious structural & societal issues if our society is dependent on population growth; something that is most certainly in defiance to our need to reduce our...
... ignores the fact that the childless are very much dependent on the smooth running of modern society, which is critically dependent on the population staying the same or growing.
The issue is we're going to have serious structural & societal issues if our society is dependent on population growth; something that is most certainly in defiance to our need to reduce our impact on the planet.
What we need is careful & considered population decline over a long term, until we can arrive at a more sustainable figure—because right now, we've exploited and nearly exhausted many of the Earth's natural resources, which have been developing for billions of years, in under two centuries.
Would population decline be somehow detrimental to societies? Versus keeping it steady and working to reduce environmental impact per capita. That's a separate question to discuss. For environment...
Would population decline be somehow detrimental to societies? Versus keeping it steady and working to reduce environmental impact per capita. That's a separate question to discuss. For environment both approaches at the same time would be the best of course.
Not all problems that relate to environmental sustainability can be tackled by reducing environmental impact however. Consider people who smoke cigarettes, then discard them out their car window,...
Not all problems that relate to environmental sustainability can be tackled by reducing environmental impact however. Consider people who smoke cigarettes, then discard them out their car window, that go on to cause wild fires; or foolish teenagers who play with matches. How about people who litter? Both of these actions have devastating environmental impacts.
These are problems that are only reduced by reducing the population, not our impact. You can't teach stupid people to not be stupid.
I wonder if this holds on evolutionary timescales as well. Was it always been the case that male offspring was more likely? Why/why not? What's the current trend; are we moving closer to or...
The reason developed countries need a fertility rate of 2.1 is because not all children survive to adulthood and babies are ever so slightly more likely to be male than female. [Emphasis mine]
I wonder if this holds on evolutionary timescales as well. Was it always been the case that male offspring was more likely? Why/why not? What's the current trend; are we moving closer to or further away from 50/50?
Hold on, you are talking about social and societal effects - stuff that happens after birth - but the quote mentions babies: So if humans, unlike other animals, are deviating from Fisher's...
The guess as to why would be that it's because boys are more likely to die off before reproductive age, whether due to aggression, risky behavior, testosterone being an immune system suppressant, etc.
Hold on, you are talking about social and societal effects - stuff that happens after birth - but the quote mentions babies:
babies are ever so slightly more likely to be male than female
So if humans, unlike other animals, are deviating from Fisher's principle, then the answer must be biological, not social.
Very simplified: Population A gave birth to 50 boys and 50 girls. 10% of boys died and we got 45 men and 50 women, or total 45 couples to reproduce. Population B gave birth to 53 boys and 47...
Very simplified:
Population A gave birth to 50 boys and 50 girls. 10% of boys died and we got 45 men and 50 women, or total 45 couples to reproduce.
Population B gave birth to 53 boys and 47 girls. 10% of boys died and we got 47 men and 47 women, or total 47 couples to reproduce.
So, population B reproduces more and will eventually greatly outnumber population A.
The species has biologically compensated by making males births more likely because they're more likely to die before they can have kids. Just like we compensated for hot weather cooking our...
The species has biologically compensated by making males births more likely because they're more likely to die before they can have kids. Just like we compensated for hot weather cooking our brains by sweating or any other evolutionary adaptation. Male aggression and risky behavior may be social, but they're influenced by biology.
One thing I didn't see mentioned is obesity. I am very curious if the obesity epidemic in developed nations has contributed to fertility issues in men and women such as PCOS. Anyone know?
One thing I didn't see mentioned is obesity. I am very curious if the obesity epidemic in developed nations has contributed to fertility issues in men and women such as PCOS. Anyone know?
There is an association between obesity and infertility so I would say, yes, that is a factor. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456969/
There is an association between obesity and infertility so I would say, yes, that is a factor.
It may be a factor, but I'd guess not nearly as strongly correlated as, say, income and education levels or personal beliefs about humanity's role in the universe. In a developed society, having...
It may be a factor, but I'd guess not nearly as strongly correlated as, say, income and education levels or personal beliefs about humanity's role in the universe. In a developed society, having children is usually a question of if people intend to have children rather than if people are physically capable of having children.
The sad part is that the disincentivization mostly affects the most educated people. If you're educated and know how fucked we are as a species, you tend not to add to the problem.
So what ends up happening is that the least educated of us reproduce more and while some will end up educated, most will not, just maintaining the current status quo in america of the rich feeding off the poor's ignorance.
I guess all I'm saying is we're all fucked and that I am also not hopeful.
I'd fundamentally disagree. The lion's share of progress humanity is undergoing, is directed to decreasing suffering, comes it to success or not.
As we are still animals evolved in constant danger, we see bad things around very well, especially with help of the internet. But on the large scale humans are good, and they also strive for less suffering and more fun in life.
Even such a simple thing as going to the bathroom at night in winter now is no suffering, unlike just a couple hundred years ago. And you can bring phone to even make it fun.
I'm trying to not be rude but let's refrain from declaring the whole human existence suffering just because personal or some societal issues.
Thanks for explanation. Regarding small sufferings, I'd offer a way of thinking that could ease them. There's nothing absolutely reliable in daily life, everything has a risk of failure. Cars, bank accounts, health, etc. One way to deal with that is some kind of minimalism, to own less things and have less cumulative risk of failures. The other, much more practical way is to expect these failures. They can happen at any moment, that's the mathematical truth. Knowledge of that not only can remove a lot of suffering from the occurrence of the failure, but also helps acting preemptively, to have backups. Do I have a spare account with money or cash just in case? Even if not, being prepared means a lot. And troubles won't cascade and stress you out so much, maybe.
The issue is we're going to have serious structural & societal issues if our society is dependent on population growth; something that is most certainly in defiance to our need to reduce our impact on the planet.
What we need is careful & considered population decline over a long term, until we can arrive at a more sustainable figure—because right now, we've exploited and nearly exhausted many of the Earth's natural resources, which have been developing for billions of years, in under two centuries.
Would population decline be somehow detrimental to societies? Versus keeping it steady and working to reduce environmental impact per capita. That's a separate question to discuss. For environment both approaches at the same time would be the best of course.
Needless to say, a very steep decline in population would be the end of society.
Not all problems that relate to environmental sustainability can be tackled by reducing environmental impact however. Consider people who smoke cigarettes, then discard them out their car window, that go on to cause wild fires; or foolish teenagers who play with matches. How about people who litter? Both of these actions have devastating environmental impacts.
These are problems that are only reduced by reducing the population, not our impact. You can't teach stupid people to not be stupid.
I wonder if this holds on evolutionary timescales as well. Was it always been the case that male offspring was more likely? Why/why not? What's the current trend; are we moving closer to or further away from 50/50?
Hold on, you are talking about social and societal effects - stuff that happens after birth - but the quote mentions babies:
So if humans, unlike other animals, are deviating from Fisher's principle, then the answer must be biological, not social.
Very simplified:
Population A gave birth to 50 boys and 50 girls. 10% of boys died and we got 45 men and 50 women, or total 45 couples to reproduce.
Population B gave birth to 53 boys and 47 girls. 10% of boys died and we got 47 men and 47 women, or total 47 couples to reproduce.
So, population B reproduces more and will eventually greatly outnumber population A.
The species has biologically compensated by making males births more likely because they're more likely to die before they can have kids. Just like we compensated for hot weather cooking our brains by sweating or any other evolutionary adaptation. Male aggression and risky behavior may be social, but they're influenced by biology.
One thing I didn't see mentioned is obesity. I am very curious if the obesity epidemic in developed nations has contributed to fertility issues in men and women such as PCOS. Anyone know?
There is an association between obesity and infertility so I would say, yes, that is a factor.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4456969/
It may be a factor, but I'd guess not nearly as strongly correlated as, say, income and education levels or personal beliefs about humanity's role in the universe. In a developed society, having children is usually a question of if people intend to have children rather than if people are physically capable of having children.