Oh yeah, i was going to also say that i think education is why women choose less children. Not only does it mean less resources per child, but it ravages a woman’s organs to have 8 children and lowers their quality of life faster. Gestational diabetes and high blood pressure are terrible for women.
yes, biologically this accounts for some sex behavior differences, ie pregnancy is cheap for men expensive for women so men are less selective with sex. Absolutely a reason education needs to win, and why the current political climate is so dangerous. 1/
Once it becomes true that education suppresses reproduction, poor education becomes an adverse evolutionary pressure. ie, over time that state of affairs could lead to a species with lower IQs by selecting for those who don't get accepted to college programs. Amplifies idiocracy effect 2/
Clearly the best way to counter that is to improve education for everyone, drive general birth rate down to <1.0 across whole society so that at least we aren't adversely selecting. But again I know these are controversial ideas 3/3
www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1... This isn’t exactly the journal i found the rat study in, but the content covers the same phenomenon.
8/ and not trying to shamelessly plug 🇨🇦 , but having the 18 months off to really connect with your child and not be thrown back to work ASAP, is a big factor in why we seem to have better adjusted woman. We have crazies don’t get me wrong, but kids get a lot of early bonding that is priceless.
7/ America is going is like being pro-inbreeding! I really like your idea of a one baby if they want plan and making it worth a woman’s time to have a child (as neurodivergent as they can get) is the best way forward. Especially as automation and AI make massive work forces into more poor people…
6/ 10-20k years ago. So much more genetic diversity. The children have much more beneficial mutations than other populations. My point I’m getting at is, North America because of our genetic diversity is already evolving IMO faster than the rest of the world. So the anti-immigration direction ….
5/ in the study. This means that if your English and you marry an English person you both shared a common ancestor within the last thousand years. Not inbred but not genetically diverse either. If an English person and a Polynesian get together, they shared a common ancestor within the last …
4/ inbred them. Each generation saw fewer viable birthing pairs until it was almost zero. This proved what we all know that inbreeding is bad. But when they made a breeding pair of the inbred rats, the offspring were more resistant to disease and were generally healthier than even normal rats; not..
3/ but that’s a false pretence. The more wider a gene pool the more chances of mutation and adaptation occurs without the spreading of disease as much as in cultures with low genetic diversity. There was a study i will try to find about rats and inbreeding. They took two families of rats and …
2/ would weed out. That leads to more women surviving to have more children that will need the same procedure. But that also means genes that would get eliminated are being spread through the population. The traditional view of blood lines and purity in races would naturally see that as alarming, …
1/? That’s a really good perspective. I totally agree that the differences between humans, like neurodivergence is the real time expression of evolution. My take on the C-section comment from Lord Dementis is that it’s a good example of how we help mothers and babies survive in ways that nature…