= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on What exactly IS the overpopulation argument (in regards to immortality)? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (53)
I find this highly implausible, from anything resembling an ev-psyc point of view. Note for example that even animals that don't have culture have an innate drive to reproduce.
Smart animals generally have a drive to have sex, not a drive to reproduce. Evolution didn't anticipate (because that blind idiot god never anticipates) that some species would be so so smart that they could easily fulfill the sex drive without reproducing. However, at this point, given the ease of birth control in much of the world, there should be direct selection pressure for wanting to reproduce, not just have sex.
As long as some people exist who tend to actually reproduce - whether or not they consciously want it - they will outbreed those who don't reproduce and dominate the population.
Any solution proposing to change people (biologically, culturally, etc) so that they can reproduce but usually don't, must make very sure there are absolutely no heritable exceptions.
JoshuaZ is basically correct- we evolved to pursue sex and to love kids once born, not to pursue reproduction in the abstract. Relevant LW article.