Questions for the surprisingly far right CFC population

[onejayhawk]

The affluence->less kids thing is definitely a much more recent (like, 20th or maybe late 19th century) development.

You should realize that there were Roman philosophers complaining about the same thing. It's commonly known that birth rates are highest in famine and war. The flip side is that they are lowest in affluence. Those that can financially afford the most children have the fewest. Ironic, no?

J

 

[mrt144]

You should realize that there were Roman philosophers complaining about the same thing. It's commonly known that birth rates are highest in famine and war. The flip side is that they are lowest in affluence. Those that can financially afford the most children have the fewest. Ironic, no?

J

It's existential commentary on the utility of children

 

[onejayhawk]

It's existential commentary on the utility of children

Depending on what you mean, I might agree. Please expand.

J

 

[Lexicus]

You should realize that there were Roman philosophers complaining about the same thing.

Please cite.

 

[mrt144]

Depending on what you mean, I might agree. Please expand.

J

I don't have much else - To me it seems kind of obvious that as affluence increases, the utility of children in most aspects goes down and in fact become liabilities to some degree. Is raising a child more validating to your existence when you have are in survival mode? I think it probably is but I don't have a mechanism in specific as to why that is. Probably a mishmash of subconscious social awareness, self awareness, the low barrier for entry to do so.

I approached the decision to parent from a dry, "is it worth it", accountancy type way and the impact of having children would have plunged my wife and I into a much harder financial situation. Perhaps part of it is that people at the margins of affluence in society start making the choice to forgo children in rational evaluations. Not the most affluent, merely the people at the margins of it.

It's really fascinating to me, what motivates people in general and specifically to have children.

 

[Honor]

It should ideally come from a fundamental desire to have children. It is possible to emotionally burn up inside with the desire to have a child with another person. Helps if you are in love with that person, and are more emotional than unemotional in general.

 

[mrt144]

It should ideally come from a fundamental desire to have children. It is possible to emotionally burn up inside with the desire to have a child with another person. Helps if you are in love with that person, and are more emotional than unemotional in general.

But we know that situational environmental inputs affect the propensity to not only have children but the quantity, so there's more to the story.

 

[Honor]

But we know that situational environmental inputs affect the propensity to not only have children but the quantity, so there's more to the story.

Yes. Yes, there is.

 

[timtofly]

I disagree. Capitalism is just adds a monetary component to the "evolutionary process of survival of the fittest". Why is it any less relevant, from an evolutionary standpoint, that one person has "long money" than it is that they have long arms? People with long money will tend to have longer lives, better health, greater choices in reproduction, longer periods in their lives where they are reproductively viable... and so on... therefore placing them in better position to propagate their genes to the next generation. Its a perfectly relevant part of our current evolutionary scheme. It doesn't "thwart" evolution, its part of evolution, just like weather resistance, disease resistance, hair color, etc.

It would seem that evolution goes on despite both empathy or economy. But having money and affluence does not mean the fittest survive. Sometimes it just means unfit people are allowed to pass on their genetic makeup. Normally those who live long do so because they put their physical effort into the task, and not necessarily because they had the financial means to do so. Economy is not a part of evolution. It is just a human concept used at least as an incentive or just a regulation and control mechanism.

 

[Sommerswerd]

It would seem that evolution goes on despite both empathy or economy. But having money and affluence does not mean the fittest survive. Sometimes it just means unfit people are allowed to pass on their genetic makeup. Normally those who live long do so because they put their physical effort into the task, and not necessarily because they had the financial means to do so. Economy is not a part of evolution. It is just a human concept used at least as an incentive or just a regulation and control mechanism.

The first sentence is correct. The rest is incorrect, and seems to stem from a fundamental misapprehension of what evolution is as well as a extremely, and arbitrarily narrow definition of "fitness". For example, Bill Gates is much more monetarily fit than I am, and Stephen Hawking is much more intellectually fit than I am... despite the fact that I am 100% certain that I could kick both of their asses in a fight, a footrace, a game of soccer or a home run derby.

 

[mrt144]

One of the amazing things about humanity is that "fitness" has grown ridiculously in a short amount of time through human intervention. And some people HATE THAT.

 

[timtofly]

The first sentence is correct. The rest is incorrect, and seems to stem from a fundamental misapprehension of what evolution is as well as a extremely, and arbitrarily narrow definition of "fitness". For example, Bill Gates is much more monetarily fit than I am, and Stephen Hawking is much more intellectually fit than I am... despite the fact that I am 100% certain that I could kick both of their asses in a fight, a footrace, a game of soccer or a home run derby.

Or some just confuse genetic evolution with all the other evolving ideology thought up by humankind.

 

[Sommerswerd]

All evolution is genetic. However, what directs evolution is external to our genes. The dinosaurs were the mightiest creatures on earth but they died, all of them, not because they weren't physically fit enough, but because they were not suited to the facts and circumstances then and there existing.

Again, you have an incomplete understanding of evolution. It seems that you want it to be based on your subjective notions of superiority and merit.

 

[mrt144]

All evolution is genetic. However, what directs evolution is external to our genes. The dinosaurs were the mightiest creatures on earth but they died, all of them, not because they weren't physically fit enough, but because they were not suited to the facts and circumstances then and there existing.

They didnt even lift.

 

[Ryika]

The dinosaurs were the mightiest creatures on earth but they died, all of them, not because they weren't physically fit enough, but because they were not suited to the facts and circumstances then and there existing.

...while birds, who had likely evolved from Dinosaurs, survived, because they were much smaller and thus likely able to adapt easier to the changing conditions.

The first sentence is correct. The rest is incorrect, and seems to stem from a fundamental misapprehension of what evolution is as well as a extremely, and arbitrarily narrow definition of "fitness". For example, Bill Gates is much more monetarily fit than I am, and Stephen Hawking is much more intellectually fit than I am... despite the fact that I am 100% certain that I could kick both of their asses in a fight, a footrace, a game of soccer or a home run derby.

So ableist!

That whole conversation is seriously misleading though, none of these are "fitness" in the sense that the term is used in biology, or more specific to this discussion, natural selection.

If we really focus on biological fitness, then the most fit in our society are the woman who do nothing but breed all of their life, have 16 children from 10 different men, and get to keep roughly 2 of them while 14 get taken away by CPS.

So biological fitness has absolutely nothing to do with "what you're good at", the only important question is: "How well do you reproduce?".

 

[Sommerswerd]

But I don't think evolution is solely dependent on "biological fitness" and unless you are arguing that it is, trying to limit the discussion of fitness to "biological fitness" seems to be missing the mark.

 

[Lexicus]

...while birds, who had likely evolved from Dinosaurs,

Birds are the only surviving group of dinosaurs.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Dont forget the Komodo Dragon!

 

[onejayhawk]

I saw an interesting article on the Chicxulub impact event. The timing was critical for it to be a major part, possibly the trigger, of an extinction event. The Earth's surface at this latitude moves at roughly 1500 km/h (930mph). If the impact was seconds earlier it would have been on deep water in the Atlantic Ocean. A few seconds later into the Caribbean Sea. More than an hour later it would have been over the Pacific Ocean. The other significant land masses are Saharan Africa part of southern India and the Thai Peninsula. Less than four hours a day would be other than deep ocean water. Shallow coastal water may also have played a part as does a significant quantity of gypsum at the impact site.

J

 

[timtofly]

All evolution is genetic. However, what directs evolution is external to our genes. The dinosaurs were the mightiest creatures on earth but they died, all of them, not because they weren't physically fit enough, but because they were not suited to the facts and circumstances then and there existing.

Again, you have an incomplete understanding of evolution. It seems that you want it to be based on your subjective notions of superiority and merit.

What is genetic about ideology?