More fun than Mayonnaise... or at least equally fun... OK, it's less fun, but you're still reading...
Preface: I can think of obvious counter-examples... and I have no hard data or society-wide info to back this up.... however: it seems like most of my friends who are smarter, well-educated and interesting to be around have no interest in nesting and familying-down... and if they do, the instinct hit them much later in life. There are also occasional reports that the population of western europe (it's highly educated!) is down because they aren't reproducing above the replacement level. Many philosophers, like Aristotle, talk about training your mind so that you can overcome "base" (read: "sexual?") instincts and live a well-reasoned, well-measured, pious life.
But what does all this mean for Darwin?
Should I be worried that none of my smart, interesting friends are nesting? Are the comforts of the 21st century reverse-evolving us for the first time in history? Is reason really a "weaker" trait than reproduction? Does reason require you to follow some animal instincts for the betterment of society? Or is my small circle of friends an anomaly in the larger scheme of progress?
Posted by steveh at February 5, 2006 10:34 PM | TrackBackYou are right about industrialized countries having negative birth rates; were it not for immigration and the baby-making of immigrant families, we would have no one to fund our retirement, much less work in our Quizno's convenience stores.
While I take no offense at being more interesting and better educated than your "breeder" friends, there is a simpler explanation (Occam's Norelco?): In industrialized countries, the opportunity costs of child-bearing increase. That is, as women have value in the workplace, making babies becomes ever more costly.
So where does this lead us? A society wherein only the very rich and the folks with little opportunity to begin with become the progenitors of the Next Generation?
Darwin would say that we are evolving our way out of existence. Or that we work too hard. His theory states that mutations are random, therefore it is impossible to predict what mutations might occur to preserve or enhance the species. Sooner or later one of them will work. Alternatively, the Intelligent Design program has kind of a fatal error.
Posted by: Underblog at February 6, 2006 07:51 AMSo, you're saying I'm dumb and boring because I settled down?
Posted by: Emily at February 6, 2006 01:57 PMYes, E... this whole post was designed to show you how dumb and boring you are.... sheesh... how narcissistic can a person get.... a whole post just about you.... that'll be the day...
Posted by: gb at February 6, 2006 03:31 PMa.) No. But you may be worried that smart intelligent women might not want to make babies w/you.
b.) I'm w/Mr. Blog--not the comforts necessarily but the STRESS required to acquire, keepin up w/the Jones' is IMPOSSIBLE!
c.) Mankind capable of reason? Since when? Where have I been all these years? I must be out of the loop...reproduction DOES require air,water, food and sunshine TOO ya know...
d.) No. See C.
e.) What's progress?