From: rkunenbo@cs.ruu.nl (Ronald Kunenborg)
Subject: Re: Are the Moties us?
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:25:41 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <1992Aug20.000415.17392@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>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?

I am. Or rather, it is extremely unlikely that such a complex desire
is a) genetically codable and b) so strong that cultural influences and
conscious decisions have no effect whatsoever.

>We already seem to have a strong instinctual need to
>protect and rear children.  Just look at the cuckoos nest phenomenon
>of adoption.

But many people can do without this strong instinctual need. Even though
adoptions are common, so are couples without kids. (I don't have the figures
on both groups though - could be interesting).

>>>>>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.

But again, I strongly deny we have or can have such a 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.

Not if the one with the gene made a conscious decision not to have kids.
Plus, the gene would have to be inheritable. Plus there'd have to be the
possibility of such a gene.

>>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. 

I suspect that motives other than instinct play a part here - society
pushes the family until you choke on it and kids are part of that
nuclear family.

>>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?

Not 100%. But culture + nurture might very well approach this figure.

>>(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.
Recent figures indicate that population growth is rising again.

>>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.

greetings & regards,
-- 
Ronald Kunenborg, Ina Boudier-Bakkerlaan 89-3, 3582 XD Utrecht, The Netherlands

        "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom
	      and democracy, but that could change." - Dan Quayle
Xref: sparky rec.arts.sf.written:11051 rec.arts.sf.science:2482