I read where intelligent, educated women are electing not to have kids. What does this mean for evolution?

Question

If you assume that the more educated are the "fittest", then it seems like more of the fittest are consciously electing not to pass their genes on. I wonder what this means for the future of mankind, and I wonder how this can be reconciled with Darwin's theory of evolution?

I've never heard that the theory of evolution doesn't apply to homo sapiens. That's a new one on me.

Answer 1

The fittest, almost by definition, ARE those who pass their genes on. If intelligence causes people not to do that, then arguably it is an unhealthy trait, not a source of fitness.

There are other ways of looking at it, however.

Consider that having LESS children is not the same as having NO children. And I don't think you'll ever find research which suggests that NO intelligent woman has children. So perhaps it's not a matter of intelligent people dying off... just a different reproductive pattern. After all, lions have far less children than rats, but both of them do just fine in their different environments.

I'd like to point out another few bits of research. For one, it has been demonstrated that people tend to mate with those of similar intelligence. For another, it has been demonstrated that intelligent parents tend to produce intelligent children. If these are both so, it may suggest a division of future human populations in a few thousand years (at least!).

After all, of dumb people generally only mate with dumb people and produce dumb children and intelligent people generally only mate with intelligent people and produce intelligent children, then you could potentially have two populations there. Perhaps smart people don't NEED as many children to survive as a group. Generally speaking, the more intelligent a creature is, the less children it can afford to have - each requires more care and teaching (see the lions and the rats again).

In that latter sense, it's perfectly reasonable for an intelligent population to continue to have less children and do just fine. As long as their intelligence assure them of the resources they need to survive, it doesn't matter if there's far less of them than the dumb ones.

That's my take, anyway.

Answer 2

Your definition of 'fittest' is wrong. Darwin meant it to mean the most successful species was the one that 'fitted' into its environment best.

Hypothetically: IF intelligent women choose not to have kids, and this hinders the passing on of their genes, then they are not the 'fittest' species and would die out, replaced by the less intelligent, but far 'fitter' women. (You'll also need to assume that intelligence is inherited not learnt, which is not really true of humans).

You must bear in mind that Darwin believed his theory ONLY applied to animals other than humans. He despised any attempts to draw parallels between his theory and mankind. Check out the Nazi's policies for what happened when that belief went too far.

Answer 3

> "If you assume that the more educated are the "fittest", "

Why do you assume that?

> "I wonder how this can be reconciled with Darwin's theory of evolution?"

Darwin's theory of evolution of course applies to organisms surviving and reproducing in a natural environment. In a "natural environment" organisms do not "elect" whether or not to have offspring. (I.e animals may "elect" which individuals to mate with, but they don't "elect" to avoid reproduction altogether by choosing a lifetime of celibacy or birth control. It is unlikely that any animal other than humans is even *aware* of the relationship between mating and reproducing.

In other words, humans do all sorts of things that no other organism does ... but that doesn't invalidate Darwin's theory of natural selection (which presupposes the "natural" part).

Answer 4

I have to disagree with you. The fittest are those who can survive on the land; through illness; through other hardships. The intelligent are not as hardy as you may think, for the most part.
This is an easy question though. Stupid people will continue to populate the earth; and hopefully the intelligent will be able to pass on enough smarts to prevent the stupid from doing everyone in!
As for the theory of evolution...we will exist until the end of time; whether by our own hands or outside influence.

Answer 5

Intelligent people understand that their environment can not sustain overpopulation. Any one with any common sense can look at countries such as China and learn from their mistakes. To raise a child properly takes a lot of nurturing, education and financial commitment. I would rather see people have one child that will be a productive part of their society that six children they let run around like wild animals. This is one of the biggest reasons why intelligent people tend to have fewer children.

Today we live in a very industrialized society. Our society depends on the blue-collar worker. We need more blue-collar than white-collar. Usually the more intelligent people become white-collar, and the rest become blue-collar (but not always). The situation of having more less-intelligent people is better for our society. Everyone can’t be an engineer, manager, scientist ect.

Answer 6

Darwin's theory says nothing about the "most intellectual". It is about the best able to survive in any given environment and to be able to produce the most offspring.

It is egotistically human to think intelligence is the best survival and most prolific survival characteristic. Not necessarily so.

(I am personally concerned about a decline in intelligence just for this reason, but can't think of what to do about it - escpecially since I chose to have no children myself!)

Answer 7

well for one thing WOMEN LOVE BABIES and i dought they will not want to have them

Answer 8

Its so and its very sad(