From: Jacques Du Pasquier (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Fri Apr 05 2002 - 04:09:00 MST
CurtAdams@aol.com wrote (4.4.2002/21:44) :
>
> >Any guesses what genes are casuing the lower reproduction?
>
> Specific genes, no; we're not that far along in understanding the human
> genome. I speculated a few years ago that operational genes were those
> that caused humans to delay reproduction until they've picked up the
> skills available in their groups. So, if you encounter somebody more
> knowledgeable than you, or new fun things to do (useful for sexual selection)
> you delay reproduction until you learn that stuff. In a tribe, you're
> going to catch up with everybody you know before too long. In modern
> society, you're never satisfied - there's always something to learn and
> something to do, so reproduction gets delayed indefinitely.
1) Regarding lower procreation how come no one mentions contraception?
We were given a desire for SEX, much more than a desire for BABIES (I
have a constant desire for sex -- not for babies). In the ancestral
environment, they amount to the same. In ours, they don't, and having
babies is deliberate, regardless of sex.
In fact this is another example of disadaptation, though in that case
it's a problem for the genes, and (apparently at least) not for the
individual. We still compete for sex and enjoy it when we get it as we
once did, though it has only accidentally a relationship with
procreation.
2) Another reason for lower procreation I can think of would be an
adaptation that links the number of offspring to how bright the future
(not just the present) looks. While you correctly pointed out that
increasing the wealth of offspring by investing more on less of them
(instead of investing less on more of them) only made sense
genetically if the final number of descendants was increased that way,
it might actually be the case depending on what the future holds.
Providing one or two children with a university education, tons of
love and attention, even financial support through adulthood, may seem
like overkill (in terms of descendance maximisation) in the PRESENT
environment, but it may turn out that it augments their chance of
making it through an extremely difficult FUTURE.
There may be an adaptation that says: if you're worried about the
future in general, restrict the number of offspring an increase the
investment on each. And we may be in such a situation. Think baby-boom
after the war: the future looks bright, people do lots of babies. Now,
though the Extropians are a group with hope, the future looks to most
people like very uncertain.
Jacques
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:15 MST