[ExI] Stone age intuition was medical power of attorney

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:

> The whole point of K VERSUS r is that it DOES sometimes pay to invest more
> in fewer children than to have as many as possible. Otherwise, all mammals
> would have three million kids, like fish.
>
>
### You are misapplying the concept of K vs r selection. K selection means
small numbers of offspring that are highly likely to succeed. r selection
means large numbers of offspring with lower individual chance of success.
Success is measured by the total fitness of the offspring, i.e. the number
of grandchildren. Applying this terminology to human procreation in 21st
America is inappropriate. There is negligible pre-adult mortality among
humans presently, thus the primary differentiating factor between K and r
is absent. There is an inverse correlation between the financial and time
resources spent on child-rearing and their lifetime fertility, turning the
K vs. r distinction on its head.
--------------------


> I’m sorry, but most parents would not think it’s a great life strategy for
> your 14 year old daughter to start pumping out babies. Or for your 15 year
> old son to start sleeping around to impregnate as many females without
> birth control as possible. As social creatures, the main competition our
> children will face is other humans…humans who have more money, power,
> beauty or social connections than our children. As parents, we may not
> think of it like that, but we are certainly aware if our son gets laughed
> at by the girl he asks to prom, or if our daughter doesn’t have the math
> skills she needs to get a high paying job.
>

### Evolutionary analysis does not use social mores as measures of success,
by definition success is measured in inclusive fitness. You can use other
forms of valuation but this is not evolutionary analysis of K vs. r
strategies.

------------------------

>
>
> Returning to that 20 percent of childless people. First off, that’s not as
> high as you think. Throughout recorded European history, at least, the
> number of people who never marry or have children has always hovered
> between 10% and 20%. So in modern times, it’s not outrageously high. (The
> birthrate increases in a good economy and goes down with a recession.) The
> people who fail to find mates are those who lack the prestige and skills
> valued by their societies. This is the secret purpose behind all the
> frantic parental investment in their children, although most parents
> wouldn’t put it that way. They want their children to be good, healthy,
> happy, attractive people. I.e. the people who easily attract mates and
> start stable families. The paradox is that raising a child to be a good and
> happy person really is the best way to get grandchildren… not pimping out
> your kids three weeks after they hit puberty.
>
>
### Marrying rich is not a recipe for a lot of children presently. Yes, it
was the case through most of human history, if you read Clark this
fecundity of the rich was what transformed the English over hundreds of
years - but today's America is different. The adaptation for "frantic
paternal investment" does not work today, the environment has changed.

Also, you seem to imply that frantically spending is the key to raising
children to be happy and good...this does not seem to be the case.
Happiness and moral traits have a strong genetic component, so the best way
to have happy and good children is to be a happy and good person married to
another happy and good person.

Rafał
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141210/b8a4674b/attachment.html>