wedrifid comments on Non-Malthusian Scenarios - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Wei_Dai 26 September 2009 02:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (88)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Bugle 30 September 2009 01:06:13PM 0 points [-]

The fact is we as large complex mammals are already locked into a low rate of reproduction, sure given the right evolutionary pressures we could end up like shrews again, but that would take an asteroid strike or nuclear war, the scenario you're thinking of assumes long term evolution within a very long lasting stable society essentially like ours. In those circumstances genes for successful reproduction will spread through the population, but that's largely meaningless - if I have the gene for super attractiveness and manage to have 100 kids with 100 women we're still below replacement rate. The way women maximize their reproduction is by having male kids who are alpha males but in these circumstances an alpha is someone who is good at seduction rather than the old style coercion and multiple wives ownership of old times.

tl;dr the bottleneck for overpopulation is individual women's fertility, and the way women maximize their reproduction is by having high quality sons rather than popping out babies nonstop. So you can still have high reproductive strategies without actual overpopulation.

In any case it's hard to think in these terms, the feeling I have is memetics will always overshadow any purely instinctual drives.

Comment author: wedrifid 30 September 2009 04:10:21PM 0 points [-]

but in these circumstances an alpha is someone who is good at seduction rather than the old style coercion and multiple wives ownership of old times.

Apart from the aforementioned confusion regarding investment in male vs female children, this isn't a new balance either.