Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

thecut.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#41

Post by dabbledash »

phamilton wrote: post #29
handbanana wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I don’t think it’s too hard to figure out. Natural selection disfavors a strategy that requires significant investment in non-reproductive activity (education, career ladder-climbing) during prime reproductive years.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#42

Post by greglindahl »

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…

You should check out the history of eugenics, it sounds like you'd be interested in those concepts. Do keep in mind that almost everyone is offended by them, however.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#43

Post by kaycebasques »

greglindahl wrote: post #40
kaycebasques wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I’m not claiming to be normal or abnormal, meaning I don’t know if it extends to others. You’re not providing evidence to the contrary, either, so you’re word is as good as mine.

"This idea" is that everyone is voting, not that you personally were voting, or that I personally was voting. If you instead wanted to provide yourself as an anecdote, that's different. Sorry that I was unclear. Personal anecdotes are quite different from claiming something is a global rule. I was just trying to double-check that you were giving an anecdote.

Ah, got it. Yes, I was just countering the anecdotes against this idea with my own anecdote for it.

Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#44

Post by danieltillett »

dabbledash wrote: post #38
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…

I’m not sure that is the best way we know. There are already many smart people who aren’t helping to solve those problems because they haven’t received the necessary education. I’d go so far as to say we’re probably missing out on the potential contributions of most smart people now. What we need to do is figure out a way to radically increase access to education worldwide.

Do you know of a better way to create more smart people because I don't. It is not simply education or else the rich would never have dumb children.

Yes we are wasting the potential of many smart people in the world by not giving them the education they need, but we are pretty good at it across most of the world already and getting better all the time. A poor very smart kid no matter where she is born will likely be identified and given an education. I personally know many smart people born in total poverty in very poor countries who have reached a very high level of education.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#45

Post by smt88 »

danieltillett wrote: post #34
smt88 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes nobody is activily discouraging smart people directly from having children (this is why it natural and not artificial selection), but it is still selection. Where did I say smart people having children is the only way to create smart people or that intelligence is only affected by genes? Please read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote. Smart people are the people that have the ability to solve the h…

You didn't say it was the only way. You said:

> "The best way we know to create more smart people is to encourage smart people to have more children"

...which is also unsupported by current intelligence research and still relevant to my counterargument.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#46

Post by squarefoot »

wool_gather wrote: post #31
squarefoot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us, including the planet under our feet, don't see it as a problem. https://www.populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03... I don't think there was anyone in the 1960s screaming "oh crap... there's only 3 billions of us around here!". We're so used to think the now and here as normal conditions that we lose focus on the global trend which is absolutely disastrous.

It is a bit of a problem inasmuch as core values/ideas are often (not always, but often) transmitted by family connections. So paradoxically, concern for the planet leading you to not have children could reduce the relative number of people who share your concern. Then again, there are other memes that lead not just to lack of reproduction, but directly to the death of the memeholder, so maybe it's not such a big dea…

Interesting point. Also culture could play a role here; it is possible that concerns about overpopulation are primarily shared among those people who are less responsible for it (living in "western" industrialized countries), so that by having less children they rather reduce the number of people sensitive to the problem than limiting overpopulation in significant figures.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#47

Post by danieltillett »

greglindahl wrote: post #42
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…

You should check out the history of eugenics, it sounds like you'd be interested in those concepts. Do keep in mind that almost everyone is offended by them, however.

Eugenics has two strands (negative and positive). Many people are offended by the negative (stopping the "undesirable" from having children), but I haven't met too many people who are offended by the "desirable" choosing to have more children.

This is all tangential to my post.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#48

Post by robocat »

learc83 wrote: post #9
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…

Beyond that fact that the Earth's future population isn't the number one factor in the decision for most couples, 2 children is still below the replacement rate.

Strangely enough 2 is not the replacement rate. One birth per death is the replacement rate.

The world population can be increased by everyone having children earlier, or dieing later.

Puzzle: Every couple in Binary Town has twins (boy and girl) at age 32. Then half the population stops reproducing, but the other half change to reproducing at age 16. What happens to the population?

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#49

Post by greglindahl »

danieltillett wrote: post #47
greglindahl wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should check out the history of eugenics, it sounds like you'd be interested in those concepts. Do keep in mind that almost everyone is offended by them, however.

Eugenics has two strands (negative and positive). Many people are offended by the negative (stopping the "undesirable" from having children), but I haven't met too many people who are offended by the "desirable" choosing to have more children. This is all tangential to my post.

It's not tangential to me, and yes, I'm totally offended by both strands. I used to date the author of the "Darwin Awards" website and books, and I've spent a lot of time interacting with the general public about these concepts.

Re: The Middle Child Is Going Extinct

#50

Post by greglindahl »

kaycebasques wrote: post #43
greglindahl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This idea" is that everyone is voting, not that you personally were voting, or that I personally was voting. If you instead wanted to provide yourself as an anecdote, that's different. Sorry that I was unclear. Personal anecdotes are quite different from claiming something is a global rule. I was just trying to double-check that you were giving an anecdote.

Ah, got it. Yes, I was just countering the anecdotes against this idea with my own anecdote for it. Thanks for clearing up the confusion.

Excellent. Thanks. I totally agree that I have a few friends who are like you: they're very concerned about the planet and that affects their childbearing plans. Me, that affects what I eat, but it didn't change my childbearing plans.
Post reply on HN