When are women going to get rid of their "i need to have kids"-'instinct'?

[weaksauce]

They aren't really making the world a better place.

And then I'm wondering how much kids they must have for the population to grow so fast.
I mean, if a couple gets one kid, the next generation will be half of the current, because two people have now replaced them selves with one. If they get two, it will be the same, and if they get three it grows. And now not everyone has kids so they're also compensation for them.

3 or more kids.

YOU'RE EVIL ANIMALS.

 

[AlNom]

heh.. it takes female AND a male to make kids. Maybe you should ask when the guys should get rid of the "knock up as many women as possible" instinct if the women not really "making the world a better place".

 

[Rolf N]

You exist because your ancestors had kids. People who do not have kids have no kids. It's called evolution.

 

[weaksauce]

heh.. it takes female AND a male to make kids. Maybe you should ask when the guys should get rid of the "knock up as many women as possible" instinct if the women not really "making the world a better place".

Of course it takes two but as far as I know it's women that most of the time want to get and keep it, and men either don't care, are against or do because she wants to.

People who do not have kids have no kids. It's called evolution.

That's evolution?

 

[Rolf N]

That's evolution?

Yes. Populations with no desire to procreate remove themselves from the competitive landscape. What remains are the species that do procreate. It doesn't get much simpler.

 

[weaksauce]

Yes. Populations with no desire to procreate remove themselves from the competitive landscape. What remains are the species that do procreate. It doesn't get much simpler.

Dude, they do not choose to procreate, they can't because they die, they cannot continue because the environemnt is to harsh, they don't have the charactaristics and ability to surive, and those who have will procreate and adapt, thus "the survival of the fittest"

Evolution is merely happening to humans today, we adapt the environment to ourselves.

 

[AlNom]

And just what do you define as the environment? The societal environment has changed drastically. Procreation isn't just about the natural environment particularly in the Western world. You may to have a ton of money. There may be a thing such as "love" between people that can go against the typically animal kingdom's method of hooking up two animals. Humans have these societal conventions versus animals.


Also keep in mind that we've also been systematically ridding the world of disease (at least major portions of the world if not entirely) and multi-million armies are no longer duking it out within one day (thank those soldiers today ).

 

[weaksauce]

Also keep in mind that we've also been systematically ridding the world of disease (at least major portions of the world if not entirely) and multi-million armies are no longer duking it out within one day (thank those soldiers today ).

Well not really, we've been getting some new diseases and old diseases back (due to global warming)
And it wasn't too long ago Stalin was in his prime.

What has become better is the survival rate of infants and old people. Still I don't see how this would be a problem if every couple got no more than two kids (and that is if every person in the world groups with another and have kids.)

 

[_xxx_]

We're still animals more then anything.

 

[weaksauce]

And just what do you define as the environment? The societal environment has changed drastically. Procreation isn't just about the natural environment particularly in the Western world. You may to have a ton of money. There may be a thing such as "love" between people that can go against the typically animal kingdom's method of hooking up two animals. Humans have these societal conventions versus animals.

"Love" doesn't make us less animals, "love" is our way to go with procreation.
What makes difference between us and most other animals is the so called "self-controll", which I don't see that you have when you pop out 3 or more kids.

The social environment isn't really about "surival of the fittest" which I think evolution atleast was about. If procreation used to be to survive, it sure as hell ain't so now. Now it's more "get kids so you can get food stamps and social welfare". Ah, now I see what you mean with social environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

 

[Rolf N]

Dude, they do not choose to procreate, they can't because they die, they cannot continue because the environemnt is to harsh, they don't have the charactaristics and ability to surive, and those who have will procreate and adapt, thus "the survival of the fittest"

That has nothing at all to do with what I said. What I said was that a species with no desire to procreate will go away all on its own, and what remains are the species that do have that desire.
Getting killed too early to follow through on that desire is a separate problem.

 

[weaksauce]

That has nothing at all to do with what I said. What I said was that a species with no desire to procreate will go away all on its own, and what remains are the species that do have that desire.
Getting killed too early to follow through on that desire is a separate problem.

Yes what you said but that is not what Darwin said.

But I've been thinking now and maybe you're right, idiots are the fittest.

 

[digitalwanderer]

I've always felt a little guilty we had just two kids, we're not really doing our part to decrease the population.

 

[weaksauce]

I've always felt a little guilty we had just two kids, we're not really doing our part to decrease the population.

By my logic you're not increasing it either so you're cool.

Oh and, "just"? You want more? Why? Do something good and spend all that money you would on your third kid to redcross or whatever, or adopt one.

 

[Humus]

I've always felt a little guilty we had just two kids, we're not really doing our part to decrease the population.

Actually, you do, but only very slightly. For the population to stay constant you need a fertility rate of about 2.1 children per woman.

 

[digitalwanderer]

No, I don't want more children. I'm perfectly happy with what we got, I guess I phrased it badly.

 

[Humus]

Having 3 or more kids is not about not having "self-control". Countries where people get lots of kids are typically poor. There are no social security systems and your ability to support yourself is nonexistant. You need kids to support you as you get old. In rich countries you no longer have to worry too much about those things, and instead having kids become something you do because you want to. As a result the fertility rate in rich countries are much lower. By now, in most of Europe it's lower than the 2.1 needed to keep the population constant. The US is pretty much just breaking even at this point. I can only look at my own family to see this pattern. My grandma born in 1917 had 12 kids (13 counting one that died at birth). My mother have 7 kids. My sister has 3 and my brother has one (the rest of us childless).
You can see the same pattern in countries like India today, that were very poor in the past but now are seeing good economic growth. Birth rates are way down from a generation or two ago. It used to be more than 6 kids, now it's down to 2.73 kids per woman. Another generation and India's population growth will pretty much have stopped.

 

[Humus]

No, I don't want more children. I'm perfectly happy with what we got, I guess I phrased it badly.

You don't want that missing 0.1 kid?

 

[digitalwanderer]

You don't want that missing 0.1 kid?

3 puppies, 2 kittays, 2 gerbils, and 2 goldfish...do those make 0.1 kid?

 

[Snyder]

Yes what you said but that is not what Darwin said.

Yes, he did. "Survival of the fittest" - what do you think is the single ability a species (as a whole) _must_ have in order to survive? The ability to procreate (well, or to be immortal...). So any species which loses that ability or where the ability is severely diminished is very likely bound to become extinct eventually - and only species whose members do have and actually use this ability remain.