Helen Fisher, who researched the brain’s love circuitry, has died
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
https://text.npr.org/2014/04/25/301824760/what-happens-to-ou...
There's the "cold" self-referential I, and the "warm" embodied self that persists. Hormones go a long way towards building that second self.
> Even after all her years of research, she’s still excited by love. “You’re trying to win life’s greatest prize — which is a life partner and a chance to send your DNA to the future..."
How novel! I met my now-partner a long time ago and we quickly agreed neither of us wants kids. 16 years later, we're pretty happy with each other. I guess you could call this a powerful extinctive adaptation.
(1) https://ideas.ted.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-lucky-in-love/
By the 6th generation of offspring, there is only ~1.56% left of “you”. 200 years is the blink of an eye, historically speaking.
If you yearn for legacy.. be a writer, teacher, researcher. Zeno is passing on his thinking some 2400 years after his death.
With 3 kids per generation it's 729 descendants, which is over 11 people!
The future belongs to mormons and muslims.
If 64 people drink 1.56% of a bottle of wine, it adds up to one drunk person.
At some point, a value turns insignificant.
To be clear: I am very much aware we do need kids, although a slight population shrink wouldn’t be too terrible. But people who tell themselves “the childless are removing themselves from the gene pool” are pulling wool over their own eyes if they think they are contributing all that much.
You can have a say in this, a largely thankless say, but with kids we imprint ourselves and our values in mankind's future. Smart folks giving up on kids are removing smart genes from future gene pool, who then gets more diluted by illiterate farmers having 10-15 kids. Of course smart & broken ain't the same value proposition as smart & functional.
You don't have to care about any of this of course, that's highly individual. But raising kids well (which requires tremendous continuous effort with no guarantee of success) is extremely rewarding experience that no mere words or just brief encounters within friends/family can explain. I speak as participant of quite a few extreme mountain sports, which can be massively rewarding but there is just no comparison. To not have kids just because of chasing some career... no respect there, its a common story that brings some deep regrets later. Not to expect anything back, just doing something good, charity in a way. It requires certain character traits to appreciate, and ie selfish folks won't ever grok this part which then translates into what sort of parents they are and what sort of kids they raise, but its there.
Anyway its just smart folks discussing pros and cons of having kids while world and its population moves forward without any care of such topics. Life with no kids is like a computer game played on easy mode. Sure, some folks can't even finish nor enjoy it on higher difficulty, its just too much for them. But that higher difficulty brings much more rewarding experience, every achievement is much harder won one, and we all know challenges build & sustain good character. So there is some angle even for selfish folks (although yeah if even one recognizes oneself as selfish, having kids are probably not the brightest idea).
Hints of eugenic thinking there
Illiteracy is not hereditary, so I don't know why you bring it in.
Poor farmers do no "dilute the gene pool"
In general, poor people have more children, regardless of IQ level.
What if they all have an exact copy of the same 1.56% of you DNA and the rest is lost forever?
In reality .. A) it doesn't work that way and B) for the bit that does work that way it is as unlikely for the same 1/64 "fingerprint" to be all that is shared as it is for a complete "fingerprint" to be exactly split into 64 parts, each to one of 64 descendants.
Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjLSo3cRh6g
Thats probably why "be fruitful and multiply" was such an important phrase in the bible. However, the message got lost in the modern hedonistic world.
Life also selects for more life, for the obvious reason.
Marriage-less and/or childless people hold no equity in the future and will be naturally selected out for those who do. The birth rate "problem" will resolve itself.
Note for context: I'm 35, never married nor intend to and never had nor intend to have children. I hold no equity in the future and I sincerely couldn't care less; I'm busy living as it is.
There have always been people who have chosen to not have children
> "This difficulty, though appearing insuperable, is lessened, or, as I believe, disappears, when it is remembered that selection may be applied to the family, as well as to the individual, and may thus gain the desired end."
Eusocial insects are doing quite well, for example, despite the tiny subset of the species that reproduce.
I sometimes wonder, but have never researched, if the long-term consequences of the pill were considered before aprooving it. Hell, dont get me wrong, its very very convenient. But the question is, will it kill humanity in the long term. Statistics on birth rate in the west definitely confirm that now.
How is that a problem?