Almost 7 billion humans shows how well this theory works.
And yet subreplacement fertility in a number of rich countries (the very place where people have copious resources) points to a serious flaw. It’s apparent that many people aren’t having babies.
People are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers.
For a highly simplified example, people like sex. In the ancestral environment sex would lead to babies. But the development of condoms, hormonal birth control, etc, has short-circuited this connection. The tasks of caring for a baby (which are evolutionarily programmed) interfere with sex. Thus, you have people forgoing babies in order to have more sex.
Of course, in the real world, people care about status, food, etc, as well as sex. All those things may have been linked to reproduction in the environment where we evolved, but the connection is far weaker with modern technology. Thus, people prefer other things to reproduction.
Some people prefer other things. Mostly, that is ultimately due to memetic infections of their brains—which divert resources to reproducing memes—rather than genes.
Yes: some people act to serve parasitic genes rather than their own genes. Yes: some people malfunction, and go wrong. Yet the basic underlying theory has much truth in it—truth an analysis on the level of status-seeking misses out. Of course the theory works much better if you include memes—as well as DNA-genes.
An analysis of whether the modern low birth rate strategy in some developed countries is very much worse than the high birth rate strategies elsewhere may have to wait for a while yet. High birth rate strategies tend to be in countries stricken by war, famine and debt. Maybe their genes will prevail overall—but also maybe they won’t.
Calling it an “infection” or a “malfunction” implicitly judges the behavior. That’s your own bias talking.
The fact that someone desires something because of a meme instead of a gene (to oversimplify things; both are always in play) does not make the desire any less real or any less worthy.
A solely status-based analysis misses things, just as a solely reproductive analysis misses things. The point is that you can’t nail desires down to simply “making good babies” or “being high status” or “having lots of sex”; any or all of these may be true desires in a given person.
It is standard practice to regard some meme-gene conflicts as cases of pathogenic infections. See, for example the books “Virus of the Mind” and “Thought Contagion”.
Similarly with malfunctions: a suicidal animal has gone wrong—from perspective of the standard functional perspective of biologists—just as much as a laptop goes wrong if you try and use it underwater. Biologists from Mars would have the same concepts in these areas.
The point of the reproductive analysis is that it explains the status seeking and attention seeking—whilst also explaining the fees paid for IVF treatments and why ladies like to keep cute puppies. It is a deeper, better theory—with firm foundations in biology.
The point of the reproductive analysis is that it explains the status seeking and attention seeking—whilst also explaining the fees paid for IVF treatments and why ladies like to keep cute puppies. It is a deeper, better theory—with firm foundations in biology.
Evolutionary analysis can if used properly. But evolutionary analysis is properly identifying adaptations, not:
people’s desires should be nailed down as hard as possible to those things that lead to raising good quality babies.
It never said that was the whole of evolutionary theory. It seems like a reasonable 1-line summary of the point I was trying to make—if quoted in context. Your 1-line summary seems to have some flaws too—there is a lot more to evolutionary theory than identifying adaptations.
And yet subreplacement fertility in a number of rich countries (the very place where people have copious resources) points to a serious flaw. It’s apparent that many people aren’t having babies.
People are adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers.
For a highly simplified example, people like sex. In the ancestral environment sex would lead to babies. But the development of condoms, hormonal birth control, etc, has short-circuited this connection. The tasks of caring for a baby (which are evolutionarily programmed) interfere with sex. Thus, you have people forgoing babies in order to have more sex.
Of course, in the real world, people care about status, food, etc, as well as sex. All those things may have been linked to reproduction in the environment where we evolved, but the connection is far weaker with modern technology. Thus, people prefer other things to reproduction.
Some people prefer other things. Mostly, that is ultimately due to memetic infections of their brains—which divert resources to reproducing memes—rather than genes.
Yes: some people act to serve parasitic genes rather than their own genes. Yes: some people malfunction, and go wrong. Yet the basic underlying theory has much truth in it—truth an analysis on the level of status-seeking misses out. Of course the theory works much better if you include memes—as well as DNA-genes.
An analysis of whether the modern low birth rate strategy in some developed countries is very much worse than the high birth rate strategies elsewhere may have to wait for a while yet. High birth rate strategies tend to be in countries stricken by war, famine and debt. Maybe their genes will prevail overall—but also maybe they won’t.
Calling it an “infection” or a “malfunction” implicitly judges the behavior. That’s your own bias talking.
The fact that someone desires something because of a meme instead of a gene (to oversimplify things; both are always in play) does not make the desire any less real or any less worthy.
A solely status-based analysis misses things, just as a solely reproductive analysis misses things. The point is that you can’t nail desires down to simply “making good babies” or “being high status” or “having lots of sex”; any or all of these may be true desires in a given person.
It is standard practice to regard some meme-gene conflicts as cases of pathogenic infections. See, for example the books “Virus of the Mind” and “Thought Contagion”.
Similarly with malfunctions: a suicidal animal has gone wrong—from perspective of the standard functional perspective of biologists—just as much as a laptop goes wrong if you try and use it underwater. Biologists from Mars would have the same concepts in these areas.
The point of the reproductive analysis is that it explains the status seeking and attention seeking—whilst also explaining the fees paid for IVF treatments and why ladies like to keep cute puppies. It is a deeper, better theory—with firm foundations in biology.
Evolutionary analysis can if used properly. But evolutionary analysis is properly identifying adaptations, not:
It never said that was the whole of evolutionary theory. It seems like a reasonable 1-line summary of the point I was trying to make—if quoted in context. Your 1-line summary seems to have some flaws too—there is a lot more to evolutionary theory than identifying adaptations.