I know lots of women who have held off on having children as they chose to become Doctors, Lawyers etc. Many of them procrastinated too long, and now cannot conceive. For those that do have kids, it's often just 1 child.
Meanwhile, low income people are having children by the dozens. So, what are the future generations going to be like?
2007-02-23 01:51:44 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
Do you think in history it was different? Yes, survival of the "low income people's children" is higher than it was 300 years ago. But "low income people" are not a garbage and their children can have as good genes as any doctor's children. And there are many examples of poor children becoming famous scientists, writers, artists... etc.
2007-02-23 02:00:46 · answer #1 · answered by zuska m 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
survival of the fittest still applies to human in some ways, people incapable of having children because of sickness for example, will not pass on their genes, and a low income mother who has 6 children must still have good enough genes to bare and raise those 6 children, even under low income conditions which makes it more remarkable i would say... people with high paying jobs are usually just more educated and have had better opportunities that have had nothing to do with their genes... so they are not necessarily more fit than low income people... this is a good question and can be looked at a lot of different ways... but i feel evolution does not and should not mean that people who can solve complex math equations should have more children, while those who can raise their children well with good values should have less... what does it say about someone who just wants lots of money and only wants 1 kid or none at all, i do not think income has that much to do with it
2007-02-23 02:15:41 · answer #2 · answered by Matt H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think so. There is no such thing as devolving in an evolutionary sense. Those who produce the most viable children who survive are the most adapted. You may not like the fact that Doctors and Lawyers aren't having more kids but I don't think it is necessarily that bad. I have some concerns but as our technology continues to advance I think we will adjust and not become less intelligent or capable.
2007-02-23 03:52:53 · answer #3 · answered by JimZ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no direction to evolution so there can't be a backwards. This "reverse social darwinism" can be argued to be a contributing factor to the failures of education etc. But there is no evidence that this has made any change in the survival rate of humans which has seen a steady increase with the advances of science. For it to be defined as a devolution, it would have to be causing and increasing number of deaths in children.
2007-02-23 11:55:57 · answer #4 · answered by Huggles-the-wise 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing as devolving. If stupid people end up with more of their offspring surviving, they were more fit to survive. Simple as that. Sour grapes from the brainy smarties isn't going to change the facts of the matter.
2007-02-23 07:31:43 · answer #5 · answered by The Ry-Guy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is an example of 2 different breeding strategies that we also see in nature in animals as well as humans. you can have a small number of offspring freeing more resources to go to that offspring giving it a better chance to survive; or you can have many offspring realizing many will not make it to breeding age.
2007-02-23 11:03:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe some are evolving through education and those who have only one child are adopting others which helps greatly in the long run. Lets hope it all works out. I prefer to be an optimist.
2007-02-23 01:56:57 · answer #7 · answered by JAN 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we've extra suitable than a hundred years of standardized IQ sorting out, administered to truly hundreds of individuals around the globe in 1000's of distinctive varieties. we've appeared at verbal reasoning, mathematical skills, seen spatial processing, memory, reaction time, precis reasoning and on and on. So what have we got here across? without question, back and back, in societies around the globe, we are starting to be to be SMARTER. in fact, psychologists have a time era for this - "The Flynn result" and it shows no longer merely that we are starting to be to be smarter yet that the linked fee of exchange in intelligence is extremely tremendous. How massive? sufficiently massive that folk who examined established in intelligence on the flip of the final century could attempt as mentally retarded now. And whilst that's uncomplicated to return up with examples of individuals doing stupid issues (notably babies), this has ever been so. (Socrates complained concerning the habit of the youthful people of his time, and fearful that examining became destroying their skill to recollect issues by using rote.) in spite of the undeniable fact that, the main obvious counterexample to that's that 3 hundred years in the past Isaac Newton bemoaned his difficulty in getting his college colleagues to comprehend Calculus (which he more suitable). at present, hundreds of hundreds of babies around the globe no longer merely comprehend calculus yet use it a point that could make Newton's colleagues collective heads spin.
2016-12-18 09:20:48 · answer #8 · answered by schwarm 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no such thing.
People have been bitching about the breeding issue for at least a few hundred years and it doesn't make any difference.
2007-02-23 14:56:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
YES! Stupid people are out-breeding the intelligent ones, plus there's no natural selection anymore to weed out the dumb folks. Except for drug abuse, that weeds some stupid people out, but not nearly enough.
2007-02-23 04:55:01 · answer #10 · answered by raggnaar 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋