The Middle Child Is Going Extinct • Hacker News Board

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#21

Post by handbanana » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #19

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

Can you explain/expand on why you think it’s natural selection?

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#22

Post by kaycebasques » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 9:51 PM UTC

notadoc wrote: post #10

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

Interesting way to look at it, I have never met anyone with that particular way of thinking about children. Most people I know made decisions about having children in terms of resources. Mainly, about available time and/or money.

I don’t see these two ideas as at odds with each other. Maybe people aren’t explicitly calculating that they should reduce the population, but deciding not to have children because of lack of resources seems like a subconscious vote to reduce the population, in my view.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#23

Post by NDizzle » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 9:54 PM UTC

Ha, funny they ask about August 12th. I'll be running a four team friendly tournament for my middle daughter's fast pitch softball team.

Three kids here. It's tough, sure. Not for everyone? You can say that too. Rewarding? The most rewarding thing I've yet to experience.

As others mentioned, I didn't really plan all these kids out. Life happens, I guess.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#24

Post by smt88 » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 9:55 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #19

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

Children per couple goes down as quality of life goes up. All developed countries see birthrates decrease. No one is actively discouraging smart people from reproducing -- they're just better off and don't need children as a safety net for retirement, and they can access good birth control.

The idea that smart people are only produced by other smart people is nonsense. Genes regress to the mean, so most smart people won't have mostly smart children. And intelligence is significantly affected by nurture, not just nature.

And beyond all that, smart people aren't the end-all, be-all of humanity. They make useful things, but are of course capable of great evil (or mental illness or any other issue that limits their contribution to society).

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#25

Post by greglindahl » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 9:58 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #15

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

A lot of responses disagreeing with this idea. I’ll lend some balance and mention that I’ve had the exact same reasoning in my own plans for the future. I won’t pretend to argue that I’m normal or abnormal, though. Haven’t done any research on the topic.

I can totally see that you are voting on that issue with your choice, however, does that mean that everyone else is doing the same?

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#26

Post by Apocryphon » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

You could also adopt one or more children. How does that affect this calculus?

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#27

Post by danieltillett » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

handbanana wrote: post #21

danieltillett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

Can you explain/expand on why you think it’s natural selection?

The number of children you have is selection (in an evolutionary sense) and because it is not a trait being selected for directly by anyone (we are not trying to breed people that want or don't children), the selection is being done by nature.

The environment of humans has radically changed and we are undergoing very strong selection and adaption to this new environment. In the past the number of children you had survive to adulthood was tied to the amount of food you could bring in (as with most animals). In the new human environment the number of children you have is a consequence of how resistant you are to the cultural meme that children are undesirable.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#28

Post by wool_gather » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #19

polarix wrote: post #3

I see the number of children a couple has as a vote on how many people should exist on earth. If you have 0 or 1 child as a couple, you are voting that there should be fewer people. If you have 2 children, you're voting that there should be about the same number of people. If you have more than 2 children as a couple, you're voting that there should be more people on earth. With that context, I can clearly see why no…

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

It's not very clear what the connection is between your two paragraphs. In fact, they seem contradictory; why does natural selection lead to fewer smart people having children?

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#29

Post by phamilton » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:06 PM UTC

handbanana wrote: post #21

danieltillett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is natural selection in action. Those that have children are of the future, those that don't are of the past. There is a huge shortage of smart people on the planet to solve the many problems that exist. The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children. Unfortunately we seem especially good as a society at identifying smart people and discouraging them from hav…

Can you explain/expand on why you think it’s natural selection?

I think he meant more that natural selection is essentially summarized as how many children various groups have. And for some weird reason, natural selection is biasing away from "smart people".

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#30

Post by phamilton » Sun, Jul 15, 2018, 10:08 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #18

crooked-v wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're completely overlooking people who would want more children but don't feel they could afford them.

That seems implicitly related to reducing population. E.g. I’ve heard that hunter-gatherers adjusted their populations depending on whether there was lean or bountiful food. What you’re mentioning seems to be the modern equivalent of that.

> hunter-gatherers adjusted their populations depending on whether there was lean or bountiful food

I almost feel like that's self regulating. Scarcity of food results in malnourishment which if it doesn't kill anyone directly, will result in other sickness being more likely to kill people. Same with children surviving to adulthood.