[jmyeet]

Here's another sobering thought: you represent an unbroken chain from the universal common ancestor of successful reproduction going back billions of years and probably trillions of generations (given that many of those were as a single-celled organism). Every one of those generations a success.

So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success.

Here's another: you have 2 biological parents, (up to) 4 biological grandparents (go look at Cleopatra's family tree) and so on to an upper bound of 2^n ancestors for the n'th previous generation. At some point this number exceeds the number of organisms that were alive at that time so there are likely one or more individuals in the past who are direct ancestors to everybody.

A consequence of this is that if you go forwards in time ultimately your genetic line will either die out or you will be the direct ancestor of everybody given sufficient time.

[vlovich123]

Humans are social animals. It’s myopic I think to only evaluate based on reproduction and genetic propagation. For example, most bees and ants are not involved in reproduction but they are all involved in helping the species survive into the future. So even if you don’t reproduce you have a critical role to play in society (helping it stay cohesive, helping productivity, helping through your work efforts, helping your friends and family raise children who can help humanity survive and be good humans themselves etc)

[BurningFrog]

Ants and bees in a hive have very similar genetics. Typically 75%, and sometimes 100%, if I remember.

This means that a hive in some ways is best thought of as a single organization, which happens to have a "distributed" body.

In that view, the non reproducing individuals are propagating their DNA in the same sense that human liver cells do, even though they don't have the direct involvement that down and egg cells do.

[derac]

Human beings are 99.9% genetically similar to each other. Also, we're about 99% genetically similar to chimpanzees.

[inciampati]

In the euchromatic regions, yeah, it's about that. Elsewhere (e.g. centromeres) we are all quite diverse. This is recent news due to long read sequencing and complete genome assembly. The human pangenome project is touching on this, if still reticent to make clear claims about the centromeres.

I'm not sure that "99%" similar is the right way to think about chimpanzees and humans. We have a different chromosome number. Our chromosome 2 is a roberstonian fusion of two acrocentric chromosomes found in all other great apes, including chimpanzees and bonobos.

[BurningFrog]

That's a different kind of percentage. The terminology is unfortunate and confusing.

I'm taking about the sense in which you share 50% of the DNA with a sibling or payment.

[lynguist]

And 30% to a tomato. So what?

The basics of cellular respiration are always the same on this planet.

[pi-e-sigma]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate-reducing_microorganism

[BurningFrog]

Damn, I need to look out for my phone making up words more!

single organization = single organism down and egg = sperm and egg

[mrphoebs]

I doesn't seem like the above commenter was making a value judgement.

[vlovich123]

> So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success.

I’m responding to this and saying that’s not an accurate way to frame it. I’m saying you are participating in evolutionary success even if you don’t reproduce. For example, a more social family where there are siblings that don’t reproduce and instead invest in the success of the reproductive sibling’s offspring is still evolutionary success and would be being selected for through your whole families reproductive success as a whole rather than your individual success.

The argument being made here is similar to the argument that sterilizing would result in removal of genes from the pool - it doesn’t work because gene selection is very complicated and doesn’t solely rely on individual reproduction.

[NortySpock]

I'm currently more focused on spreading good memes to the next generation.

Memes like kindness, empathy, planning ahead, being honest with yourself (and preferably others), communicating your intentions clearly ahead of time, and how good parenting takes more emotional labor and emotional intelligence than, say, the kind of parenting that solely consists of yelling when the parent does not receive the desired response from the child.

Genes are not the only thing the next generation needs.

[dr_dshiv]

I like this argument because it frames the “self”/“you” as an illusion—instead, there is a more distributed self. I recognize that there are arguments against this argument — but you point out that DNA identity is pretty distributed as well. Neat.

[mrphoebs]

My mistake, I presumed incorrectly, that the argument you were making came from a place of defensiveness, rather than a more holistic framing of evolutionary success. Thanks for providing further clarity.

[Log_out_]

You also remove infection vectors for failed memetics from the pool

[laeri]

They are involved in helping their queen produce new offspring that also contains part of their own genetic material. In bees and ants you have to think of them as one single individual. Each single worker is not able to reproduce but they still will indirectly still reproduce through their queen. Not sure what being good humans has to do with this.

[Loughla]

Genetic line =/= role to play in society.

Those are different things.

[lo_zamoyski]

The OP was making an observation. But I'll bite.

First, human beings are not bees or ants. Our nature vis-a-vis reproduction is quite different. Most human beings do reproduce as that is our nature, or certainly most of us used to with the exception of periods of social collapse (think of Rome). We're in that sort of condition now, where we are having little or no children in the developed world. This does not bode well and at some point the decline of such a society will become irreversible.

Of course, you are right that not everyone must reproduce, that there is no particular obligation for anyone to reproduce, and that those who do not can still contribute to the well-being of their families, the human species, and the common good. And indeed, if you are, say, a Catholic, you would say that while having children is the natural course and the normal path for most people, a small minority are called to sacrifice this natural end for the sake of a higher supernatural, spiritual end, e.g., the priesthood, by which one becomes a spiritual parent in place of a biological one. Certainly, we can be parental figures in non-biological ways as well. Even biological parents do that.

But that's not that we're seeing behind the present demographic decline. Something like the priesthood is an exception, not the rule. Most who can have children of their own are not having them, or many of them, not because of some kind of exceptional higher calling, but rather for morally dubious reasons. Children are demanding. They require sacrifice. They demand the love known as charity. A consumerist is going to view a child not as a gift, but a burden. Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US). Having many children used to be seen as a blessing, a privilege. Today, we both think we're entitled to having children (IVF is a testament to that), and refuse to have them.

[safety1st]

I'm downvoting this because of the arrogant and dubious notion that people who've chosen not to have children are somehow morally flawed. The fact of the matter is that successfully raising, educating etc. a child is dramatically more expensive than it was a few generations ago. While we can debate the various reasons for the decline in the reproduction rate there's no doubt that this is a big one, not as many people can afford to raise kids.

The factual and pragmatic view today is that if you can't afford a large home, one parent taking a lot of time off of work, and $120K+ in education bills then you are not setting your offspring up for success, this is not based on your personal morality, it is based on economics, and on statistical observations of the population.

Ergo your lionizing of people who have have children actually amounts to a defense of the economically privileged, and you assert that the benefactors of the systemic increase of wealth inequality in our society are the most moral people. It's despicable really. Go eat your cake, pig.

[eks391]

I don't believe whether ones finances allowing someone to have children is the factor for whether they will. From my observation (i have not researched this; this is anecdotal), wealthier people opt to have fewer or no kids, and larger families are usually those of lower income, like there's an inverse relationship between wealth and desired number of children. Even I used to want a large family until I acquired a higher standard of living and certain luxuries that I would likely have to give up if I got married and had kids.

There's a popular line of thought that motherhood is below a working woman, and men and woman alike are enjoying increased ease of living and a consumerism lifestyle. The folk who still have to stretch and sacrifice to make ends meet already have the mindsets needed for children (sacrifice, hard work) and aren't affected by the line of belief that motherhood is 'below' since they already have learned not to compare themselves to others.

Again this is speculation. I am not a sociologist.

[safety1st]

There used to be some truth to that but not so much anymore. It's historically correct that the poor used to have more kids (and I think are still a bit more likely to have them than the middle class). But what started to happen about 10-15 years ago was that everyone became less likely to start a family except for rich people. To be precise if a woman is rich enough to afford childcare she's much more likely to have kids.

Here's an article on the topic: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/oct/25/women-w... - that's about a decade old and the evidence/trend has only grown.

Children are just another one of those things that is increasingly out of reach for the American middle class, along with property ownership, health care etc. For the poster I responded to to ignore the economic data and paint the middle class and ordinary human beings as being selfish and immoral is perverse.

[Dalewyn]

>wealthier people opt to have fewer or no kids, and larger families are usually those of lower income, like there's an inverse relationship between wealth and desired number of children.

I've also noticed this trend, richer societies have less children and poorer societies have more children.

Absolutely no politician (aka the people charged with population and demographic concerns) actually points this out, though. Probably because it goes against a lot of narratives and the simple solution it implies is brutally unpalatable for pretty much everyone.

I also notice that every single would-be or could-be parent inquired says they can't afford it, while also clearly enjoying many luxuries that being poor would actively prohibit. I presume they all keep claiming the issue is money because who doesn't like free handouts from the government just by saying you'll have kids? Get 'em while the getting's good. I'm not talking about just the US, either.

Anyway, I believe the only true solution to declining birth rates is simply to become poor again as a society. It's the only logical solution when becoming richer clearly leads to less children.

[Log_out_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A

[tanepiper]

It's not just economics. I earn a good salary and own my house, but I'm on my second marriage as both my partner and I have ADHD and Autism and in our 40s.

It's not fair to try raise a child in those conditions, so we choose not to for their sake more than ours.

[vlovich123]

No humans aren’t bees or ants. We’re social animals and you can’t ignore society and culture as aspects of evolution.

Regardless, you’ve taken this whole thing in a weird direction bringing up a demographic collapse that is a fringe theory at the moment. As for that hypothesis, there’s no actual indication that humanity is in any danger of a collapse just because the boomer generation is passing and our numbers return to normal. Humans can reproduce quite quick and have a long reproductive lifecycle - if it ever becomes a problem society will change to priority life more. As it is, life has gotten pretty difficult in terms of supporting kids and people having fewer is a symptom of that and not consumerism as you claim. And children are both a blessing and a burden. If they weren’t a burden then the statistics about teenager births and the outcome for the parents and babies wouldn’t be as bad as they are.

[zpeti]

> demographic collapse that is a fringe theory at the moment

Show me the actual numbers where this isn't a massive change in humanity in the future?

This is not a fringe theory. The effects of the collapse we can theorise on, but the collapse will happen now. It's not a question or a theory.

[vlovich123]

The person making the claim gets to present the data supporting it.

It depends on what you mean by collapse. Is it that population will decline globally for a bit to a new equilibrium point? Sure I can believe that because boomers were a huge population bubble after WWII and there have been lots of living standard advancements since then (a huge one being family planning options being more and more available to the world’s population). It’s also important to remember that the population bubble was also driven by significant life extension and health advancements in medicine and nutrition without any real birth control being available so the lag until birth control became available results in another population bubble.

None of that is particularly dire. And btw, it’s not even clear to me that the population will actually start decreasing. And even if it does, believing it’s some runaway effect that can’t be fixed within 20 years once we notice it seems myopic as well.

The position you’re taking though, that population will not only decline but that there’s no bottom to it and society will collapse, is the Elon Musk doomer talking point that this somehow portends the end of countries or civilizations or humanity itself. There’s simply no evidence and no realistic mechanism of action for something that extreme. Human populations have always ebbed and flowed and the exponential growth we’ve seen since the Industrial Revolution is not the norm nor is it sustainable.

> This is not a fringe theory. The effects of the collapse we can theorise on, but the collapse will happen now. It's not a question or a theory

Again - you’ve stated something quite extreme without providing any support and then tried to shift the responsibility for providing evidence to the person doubting your wild claim. That’s not how it works, sorry. It is a hypothesis that there’s demographic collapse until it’s either happened or there’s credible evidence it will happen. Right now afaik neither is true.

[zpeti]

The reason this isn't a doomer Elon Musk theory is that the numbers are very counter intuitive. Add to this the fact that our average age is also rising, hiding the worrying signs even more.

Imagine we have a society with 100 people with a fertility rate of 1, that give birth at 20 and die at 80. Here is how that looks:

---

Year 0: 100 newborns (Population is actually 300 at this point)

Year 20: 100 twenties, 50 newborns

Year 40: 100 forties, 50 twenties, 25 newborns Year 60: 100 sixties, 50 forties, 25 twenties, 12 newborns

Year 80: 50 sixties, 25 forties, 12 twenties, 6 newborns

Year 100: 25 sixties, 12 forties, 6 twenties, 3 newborns

Year 120: 12 sixties, 6 forties, 3 twenties, 1 newborn

within 120 years you've gone from 300 people to 22 people

Korea is worse than this. Japan is close, Europe is getting close. A birth rate of 1 is not impossible worldwide soon.

[overtomanu]

My theory is that, as of now population might be above a "equilibrium". Since it is above equilibrium, it causes increased economic competition to raise kids. So only few economically well off couple have kid's.

After few generations, population comes back to some level where economic competition to raise kids is reduced. Also, most of the lineages of people who chose not to have kids would have been wiped out or atleast somewhat reduced (Natural selection at play). So the people living in the future are likely to have kids on the condition that there is no economic penalty.

So humanity extinction due to demographic decline is less likely. Instead it might happen due to something like nuclear war. More details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature...

[InSteady]

I mean, population decline is a thing, and most 'developed' nations, or whatever you want to call us, are experiencing it. Demographic collapse sounds like a a scary term bandied about by people with an agenda (or those who want to proclaim the sky is falling but bizarrely want to ignore climate change and ecological collapse).

I'm just guessing, because I haven't encountered the term and I'm not finding much about it on google. Certainly nothing from scientific or authoritative sources. I guess one article from FT uses the term to describe China's population decline.

[ARandomerDude]

> Furthermore, our society demonizes families, especially large families (perhaps in part stemming from Protestant attempts to restrict Catholic populations in the US)

I think it has a lot more to do with feminism than any Protestant/Catholic divide. In the Protestant church I attend, having 6+ kids is pretty normal. Certainly many evangelicals don’t value large families but I think they’re getting that mindset from the culture, rather than sacred Scipture.

[zpeti]

Some say feminism (and progressivism) is just an offshoot of protestantism, albeit a secular, puritan version.

[jmyeet]

This is a perfect example of what I like to call the Eggs-Waffles Phenomenon. Basically, you can’t say something like “I like waffles” on the internet without someone replying “how dare you malign people who like eggs”. And here there’s not even a value judgement or personal preference yet this has somehow been perceived as an attack on the childless. Others have jumped in to bemoan the perceived attack on the family. It’s wild.

Nowhere do I argue that you should or shouldn’t reproduce or that either outcome affects your perceived or actual value. The word “fail” seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting in your perceptions here.

[nostrademons]

I suspect a lot of the "woe, things are way harder for Millennials than past generations, I'm too poor to have a family" zeitgeist is actually this phenomena + literal survivorship bias. Every single person alive today came from parents that successfully reproduced. When you're a kid, it's very natural to think that having kids and a family of your own is the default state of being. After all, all of your friends have parents who successfully reproduced too.

But that's because you tend to have much closer relationships with your family and peers than with childless adults. When I change my sample from "my friends growing up" to "my parent's friends when they were growing up", a lot of them never had children. By the numbers, the percentage of households that are families with children has gone down, but it's gone from about 55% in 1970 to 40% in 2022, which is a much less drastic fall than most people would suspect. Being childless is far more normal than children believe.

[InSteady]

You raise an interesting point, but you also seem to be conflating two things. Having children is more expensive than ever, and purchasing power has continued to drop for decades. Not to mention the drastic increase in specific "raising a family" essentials/barriers like housing costs, medical debt, educational debt, and childcare expenses. I don't have numbers to back this up, but my intuition (based on observation and casual reading) is that more working class people who actively want to have children are not doing so because they are stretched too thin than we saw in the 1970's (when people could work part-time to pay for all 4 years of college and expect a high paying career out of their degree).

Also, a 15% drop in 50 years is nothing to scoff at. In America, we are below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman. Currently it is at 1.7, so our population would be declining without immigration. [1] This is not a bad thing in my opinion, but it is extremely significant in terms of politics, culture, and economics. If our fertility rate continues to drop expect to start hearing about it more often and at higher volume from many different corners.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr028.pdf

[afavour]

Why would any of that be specific to millennials, though? The way you’re describing it nothing would have changed in a very long time.

I’m pretty sure the “I’m too poor to have a family” perspective stems directly from the wild increases we’ve see in the price of housing and not a whole lot else.

[nostrademons]

That's the point - nothing has changed, except the narrative.

The wild increases in the price of housing is a symptom of the same dynamic we've seen throughout time, of competition over resources and survival of the "fittest" (where "fittest" occasionally means most brutal/devious/selfish). The differences are that a.) The (white) Baby-boom generation (in the U.S.) bucked the trend and enjoyed abundance and very little selection pressure. Note that the story was very different if you were black (where you had the gains of the Civil Rights movement, only to have the rug pulled out from under you with the 70s inflation and 80s crack epidemic) or if you were Chinese (where you probably died in the Cultural Revolution or Great Famine) or Russian / Eastern European (where you likely drank yourself to death after the breakup of the Warsaw Pact). And b.) that in our "civilized" society, we prefer to let people die rather than kill them outright. Not so for the WW1/WW2 generation.

[wruza]

So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success.

True to an extent. What you really break in this case is the last inch change that your parents happened to merge in. Your extended families are still there with almost the same genotype.

[_0ffh]

Here's another, superficially quite perplexing one: Your female ancestors vastly outnumber your male ancestors.

[overtomanu]

For those wondering, I think this is mostly because of men having multiple wives.

[JPLeRouzic]

I don't understand that, IMO it's more than only high cast/class men could reproduce, others were used as slaves/living tools. Isn't the main change brought by the Neolithic?

[_0ffh]

Imagine drawing your ancestry tree, parents, grandparents, etc. you will of course have as many male as female nodes. The higher variance of male reproductive success makes it likelier for two given male nodes to be filled by the same infividual, than for two given female nodes.

Ed. Of course this only works if some males have more than one reproductive partner over their life span. Serial monogamy, escapades, and polygynie are the obvious probable factors in skewing the symmetry. I might have missed some less obvious ones, but can't think of any right now.

[lamontcg]

> So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success.

All your genes are in other people and will continue without you. And your unique configuration of genetics is lost like a droplet in a river. Only around one in a billion people really put their stamp on our genealogy -- and you really need to rape, murder and empire build like Genghis Khan to achieve that kind of thing (and as the population expands it likely gets more and more difficult).

[qgin]

The idea of a genetic "line" is not the concept people think it is.

Humans already share 99% of their DNA. Of the 1% that creates our differences, after 5 to 7 generations, depending on how you look at it, the similarity of your descendent's DNA to your DNA would essentially be indistinguishable from noise or random variance in people who you aren't even related to at all.

Talk of lines and blood and bloodlines has more to do with people really wanting to not disappear into oblivion.

[lostlogin]

> At some point this number exceeds the number of organisms that were alive at that time so there are likely one or more individuals in the past who are direct ancestors to everybody

Wouldn’t this common ancestor be a certainty? Otherwise aren’t you betting that there were similar mutations in different lines?

[Dalewyn]

>So if you fail to reproduce you will break that billion year old chain of evolutionary success.

I sincerely could not care less. As far as I'm concerned, my blood ends with me. I have absolutely no interest in continuing this endless cycle of bullshit.

You are welcome to have babby, of course, and to also do so in my stead if you are exceedingly concerned about the population count that I won't help grow or maintain, I ain't stopping you since what you do in your bedroom is none of my business (and vice versa, if the above wasn't clear enough).