I might want to mostly change the genetics to cultural transmission of fertility, but the biggest issue IMO is 2 issues:
Even the high-fertility cultures are declining in fertility, and if the highest fertility culture is essentially 2.0 or lower, which demographers predict, then nothing can really save you over the long run, except evolution, and the issue will be discussed below.
Admittedly, this is a cached thought I might have, but the basic issue is one of time. If it was happening in 10,000 years or more, I wouldn’t be worried about it too much, but the big issue is that the time scale is probably too fast for evolution to catch up by default. This will happen in centuries, not millennia, and if I remember correctly, only bacteria or very small life can evolve non-trivial traits on the necessary time-scale. Maybe it’s possible, but I currently suspect that this will be a tall order to select for higher fertility fast enough, and I think the selection effects are probably not strong enough to work.
Evolution can do some things in centuries, if the selection pressure is huge, which it is, and the change is simple, just adjusting a few parameters, which it is.
More to the point, most of the reasons why this model is bunk are technological or cultural changes, not evolution.
the big issue is that the time scale is probably too fast for evolution to catch up by default
This isn’t growing wings, it’s some very simple changes. If the problem is literal fertility (too few sperms, women having difficulties getting embryos to implant, etc) then it’s probably exactly the kind of thing that evolution can select for in a handful of generations. If the problem is a more general cognitive one (given the existing hyperstimuli and/or cultural context that make people less willing to have children, evolve people whose values are geared so that they have a stronger drive to have children even in these circumstances), that might be a lot more complex, if possible at all. But honestly anyway I doubt biology will play any major role in this either way. It’s a matter of culture and economic incentives, mostly.
I might want to mostly change the genetics to cultural transmission of fertility, but the biggest issue IMO is 2 issues:
Even the high-fertility cultures are declining in fertility, and if the highest fertility culture is essentially 2.0 or lower, which demographers predict, then nothing can really save you over the long run, except evolution, and the issue will be discussed below.
Admittedly, this is a cached thought I might have, but the basic issue is one of time. If it was happening in 10,000 years or more, I wouldn’t be worried about it too much, but the big issue is that the time scale is probably too fast for evolution to catch up by default. This will happen in centuries, not millennia, and if I remember correctly, only bacteria or very small life can evolve non-trivial traits on the necessary time-scale. Maybe it’s possible, but I currently suspect that this will be a tall order to select for higher fertility fast enough, and I think the selection effects are probably not strong enough to work.
Evolution can do some things in centuries, if the selection pressure is huge, which it is, and the change is simple, just adjusting a few parameters, which it is.
More to the point, most of the reasons why this model is bunk are technological or cultural changes, not evolution.
This isn’t growing wings, it’s some very simple changes. If the problem is literal fertility (too few sperms, women having difficulties getting embryos to implant, etc) then it’s probably exactly the kind of thing that evolution can select for in a handful of generations. If the problem is a more general cognitive one (given the existing hyperstimuli and/or cultural context that make people less willing to have children, evolve people whose values are geared so that they have a stronger drive to have children even in these circumstances), that might be a lot more complex, if possible at all. But honestly anyway I doubt biology will play any major role in this either way. It’s a matter of culture and economic incentives, mostly.