Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.science
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 00:04:15 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Aug18.113218.8610@cs.ruu.nl> rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg) writes:
>In <1992Aug15.223224.9342@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>In article <Bt01vz.L46@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jwtlai@jeeves.uwaterloo.ca (Jim W Lai) writes:
>>>In article <rwallace.713710067@unix1.tcd.ie> rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:

>>>>Again, this is true - but I think the original poster's point was that
>>>>genes for wanting to have as many children as possible are likely to
>>>>become more and more prevalent as time goes on, simply because people
>>>>who choose to have more children are going to have more surviving
>>>>offspring in the next generation.

>>>Genes don't tell us that though.  They just tell us to have sex, tricking us
>>>into reproducing.  So we'll end up with a planet full of sex maniacs.  :)

>>Sure they do.  Or at least they control how many children we have.
>>For example, twins tend to run in families.

>But the amount of twins is under control by the mother (in ideal
>circumstances). 
>And if someone decides one twin is enough, someone else who likes
>three kids could 
>get three single kids. Even with twins running in the family it wouldn't help
>the genes one whit.

Well, first  off, twins was just a simple example.  Are you really
claiming that a geneticly based desire to have many kids is
impossible?  We already seem to have a strong instinctual need to
protect and rear children.  Just look at the cuckoos nest phenomenon
of adoption.

>>>>Are there any effects that would counteract the genetic trend towards
>>>>wanting to have more children? (In the very long term.) Or is there some
>>>>flaw in the reasoning?

>>>How about birth control?

>>How will birth control effect the genetic trend towards wanting to
>>have more children?  After all, it is at least semi-voluntary even in China.

>"Wanting to have more children" is a very abstract concept - there is
>currently 
>no evolutionary pressure for this, 

Of course there is.  Say we havethe gene WMK - the want more kids
gene.  In each generation it is going to appear in a larger proportion
of the population, right?  That's virtually the definition of
evolutionary pressure.

>there is no indication that getting children has
>ever been decided on another base than external circumstances.

Sure there is.  Adoption.  Why do childless couples adopt?  What's the
point except to fill an instinctual need that they themselves can not
fulfill. 

>And besides the abstract concept of "wanting more children"
>presupposes a human ruled 
>by instinct (or genes - it all boils down to the same thing). I
>empathically deny that 
>humans cannot make conscious choices about the number of children
>they want to have. 

Of course they can make a concious choice.  And what defines what
concious choice they make?  Are you going to claim it is 100% nurture?

>(BTW The pressure of govts. bearing on people to get more children or less
>children has no measurable effect whatsoever in terms of population control 
>(control up & down), other than causing infanticide on girls in large
>areas of the globe. 

It seems to have worked in China.

>More income has on the other hand proven to be much more effective).

Correct.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.