In a world of social welfare, you are giving terrible advice. What good would have come from a junky having a child? Do you want to see how that worked out? We need to probably evolve past birth control. That means many of us not having children. The future will have less humans, and that is not terrible, unless you fear your culture will die out (see Italy, Germany).
I see where you are coming from, and drugs can destroy lives, but no good comes from poorly-planned families. It is better to have a consolidation generation or three where assets concentrate down. So long as we can defend our borders, an America with 200m will not be appreciably worse than an American with 330m. I think we can all agree that a China or an India will less people will likely lead to better lives and improving environmental conditions. I would love to see a Europe with re-wilded forests, along with an expanding Amazon basin and less filth being pumped into the sky. Collapsing populations are terrifying, but slow reductions might be exactly what earth needs. Furthermore, less misery from better parents might be exactly what humanity needs.
There is a difference between what is good for the individual and what is good for society or humanity as a whole.
Biologically, the individual's purpose is to reproduce. It doesn't matter if he's a junkie or a moron or whatever.
Those who choose not to reproduce simply free up resources for those who choose to reproduce, so you can't limit the population with voluntary low fertility. I've explained that in other articles.
Collective problems require collective solutions. To maintain modern civilization, with abundance and low child mortality, we would need to socially impose eugenic reproduction control.
The fitness of genes depends on the environment, and we shape the environment. Fitness is simply the ability to reproduce in an environment.
"our destiny is to evolve beyond our base instincts"
No, that's a religious belief, which has nothing to do with reality. All instincts are "base", in that they all evolved to contribute to reproduction. None of them serve a cosmic purpose.
"there is quite a bit of evidence that our environment has an impact on evolution"
Of course our environment has an impact on evolution. And when we change our environment, we change the selective pressures on the human genome. That's why we need eugenic reproduction control to maintain modern civilization.
"but avoiding senseless population pressures is good at this stage of human development"
I argue for eugenic reproduction control, to prevent population growth and dysgenics. That was in the posts that you didn't read.
"I am enthusiastic about massive incentives to parents, but coercing people into reproduction does not end well."
I am completely opposed to incentives for parents. I do not propose coercing people to reproduce. I propose coercing people to *not* reproduce. Again, that is explained in the articles that you did not read.
"I have faith in evolution. I have faith in nature."
Yes, I can see that you have adopted some kind of religion in which nature is like a god. But that's a delusion, which has nothing to do with reality.
"In addition, your writing has gotten much better. You have come a long way since 2014 and 2017. If you like those ideas still, you should re-write those. I suspect you imagine them to be better than they actually are. I am not trying to be a jerk, but those are not your best work."
Since you obviously didn't read them, I will ignore your advice, lol.
I sincerely apologize for offending you. That was not my intention. I did read the first two posts, but clearly I did not obtain the conclusions you think I should have. I must have misunderstood them. I hope you have a nice day.
o7
In a world of social welfare, you are giving terrible advice. What good would have come from a junky having a child? Do you want to see how that worked out? We need to probably evolve past birth control. That means many of us not having children. The future will have less humans, and that is not terrible, unless you fear your culture will die out (see Italy, Germany).
I see where you are coming from, and drugs can destroy lives, but no good comes from poorly-planned families. It is better to have a consolidation generation or three where assets concentrate down. So long as we can defend our borders, an America with 200m will not be appreciably worse than an American with 330m. I think we can all agree that a China or an India will less people will likely lead to better lives and improving environmental conditions. I would love to see a Europe with re-wilded forests, along with an expanding Amazon basin and less filth being pumped into the sky. Collapsing populations are terrifying, but slow reductions might be exactly what earth needs. Furthermore, less misery from better parents might be exactly what humanity needs.
There is a difference between what is good for the individual and what is good for society or humanity as a whole.
Biologically, the individual's purpose is to reproduce. It doesn't matter if he's a junkie or a moron or whatever.
Those who choose not to reproduce simply free up resources for those who choose to reproduce, so you can't limit the population with voluntary low fertility. I've explained that in other articles.
https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2014/02/we-cannot-transcend-evolution.html
https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/01/demography-and-destiny.html
Collective problems require collective solutions. To maintain modern civilization, with abundance and low child mortality, we would need to socially impose eugenic reproduction control.
https://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2022/07/bootnecking-modern-civilization.html
You didn't read the posts that I linked.
The fitness of genes depends on the environment, and we shape the environment. Fitness is simply the ability to reproduce in an environment.
"our destiny is to evolve beyond our base instincts"
No, that's a religious belief, which has nothing to do with reality. All instincts are "base", in that they all evolved to contribute to reproduction. None of them serve a cosmic purpose.
"there is quite a bit of evidence that our environment has an impact on evolution"
Of course our environment has an impact on evolution. And when we change our environment, we change the selective pressures on the human genome. That's why we need eugenic reproduction control to maintain modern civilization.
"but avoiding senseless population pressures is good at this stage of human development"
I argue for eugenic reproduction control, to prevent population growth and dysgenics. That was in the posts that you didn't read.
"I am enthusiastic about massive incentives to parents, but coercing people into reproduction does not end well."
I am completely opposed to incentives for parents. I do not propose coercing people to reproduce. I propose coercing people to *not* reproduce. Again, that is explained in the articles that you did not read.
"I have faith in evolution. I have faith in nature."
Yes, I can see that you have adopted some kind of religion in which nature is like a god. But that's a delusion, which has nothing to do with reality.
"In addition, your writing has gotten much better. You have come a long way since 2014 and 2017. If you like those ideas still, you should re-write those. I suspect you imagine them to be better than they actually are. I am not trying to be a jerk, but those are not your best work."
Since you obviously didn't read them, I will ignore your advice, lol.
I sincerely apologize for offending you. That was not my intention. I did read the first two posts, but clearly I did not obtain the conclusions you think I should have. I must have misunderstood them. I hope you have a nice day.