Evolution is slow. It takes generations. Depending on the selection pressure these may be quite few. Assume sexual drive were the only determining factor for reproductive fitness (which probably is a good approximation for some animals) and you introduce a 95% successful ‘contraception’ (e.g. a genetic modification to avoid reproduction—this has been done for mosquitoes) and guess how many generations it takes to work around it. Now humans use 95% reliable contraceptives—but their usage is regulated by complex processes so no simple analysis suffices (just think of the misinterpretaion of the baby-bust/pill-gap).
Additionally we don’t have to limit us to genetic evolution. We could also consider memetic evolution—the one invoked somewhat imprecisely in point 4. Memes evolve faster. It could happen that meme-complexes joining birth-control and anti-science out-breed progress within few generations.
Sure after 500 years we’d likely have the technological means—if anyone is still interested in technology then. And for some 500 may be a more likely date than 50.
It takes many generations. Human generations are quite long.
Without a technological civilization, the oldtime pressures of hunger and violence will dominate everything else—Which in some ways favors various means of birth control. Because having 6 kids and having all of them die due to splitting available resources to many ways is not a successful strategy. Therefore, your projection only makes sense in a continuing technological civilization, in which case engineering happens.
And again. Most people have kids. Successful use of birth control allows you to control time and number of said kids, the mosquito analogy holds no water whatsoever, if you want to model the selective advantages / disadvantages of this, you are going to need extensive real world data over generations- and a computing model projecting forward, and you would still be making stuff up.
Therefore, your projection only makes sense in a continuing technological civilization, in which case engineering happens.
Agreed. But the speed of technology is estimated quite variably. And at least currently there are already ethical (read: memetic) constraints on applying technology to reproduction. So one could argue that the selection pressure is already doing its work.
you are going to need extensive real world data [for] projecting forward.
Agreed. What do you propose? Assuming it too complicate to contemplate?
.… Yes. I mean, if you want to do a phd’s worth of work, there are existing datasets one could mine—but the time horizon (since the legalization of birth control) is so short and the social context regarding reproduction has been shifting so heavily during this period that any predictions you make would end up being barely guesses. Fortunately, the subset of plausible futures in which this matters is absurdly small. The world would essentially have to enter into technological and social stasis for many thousands of years, and well. Uhm. No.
The marching morons has a lot to answer for, really, since variations on this is an idea that crops up like weed, and it is a pretty absurd scenario.
The marching morons has a lot to answer for, really, since variations on this is an idea that crops up like weed,
This is kind of an relevant argument because it means this—despite my non-political phrasing—is really a political topic because the opinion coalition effects are possibly much stronger than any solid predictions to be had. Or to rephrase this: Any actual biological effect is outweight by memetic effects.
Evolution is slow. It takes generations. Depending on the selection pressure these may be quite few. Assume sexual drive were the only determining factor for reproductive fitness (which probably is a good approximation for some animals) and you introduce a 95% successful ‘contraception’ (e.g. a genetic modification to avoid reproduction—this has been done for mosquitoes) and guess how many generations it takes to work around it. Now humans use 95% reliable contraceptives—but their usage is regulated by complex processes so no simple analysis suffices (just think of the misinterpretaion of the baby-bust/pill-gap).
Additionally we don’t have to limit us to genetic evolution. We could also consider memetic evolution—the one invoked somewhat imprecisely in point 4. Memes evolve faster. It could happen that meme-complexes joining birth-control and anti-science out-breed progress within few generations.
Sure after 500 years we’d likely have the technological means—if anyone is still interested in technology then. And for some 500 may be a more likely date than 50.
It takes many generations. Human generations are quite long.
Without a technological civilization, the oldtime pressures of hunger and violence will dominate everything else—Which in some ways favors various means of birth control. Because having 6 kids and having all of them die due to splitting available resources to many ways is not a successful strategy. Therefore, your projection only makes sense in a continuing technological civilization, in which case engineering happens.
And again. Most people have kids. Successful use of birth control allows you to control time and number of said kids, the mosquito analogy holds no water whatsoever, if you want to model the selective advantages / disadvantages of this, you are going to need extensive real world data over generations- and a computing model projecting forward, and you would still be making stuff up.
Agreed. But the speed of technology is estimated quite variably. And at least currently there are already ethical (read: memetic) constraints on applying technology to reproduction. So one could argue that the selection pressure is already doing its work.
Agreed. What do you propose? Assuming it too complicate to contemplate?
.… Yes. I mean, if you want to do a phd’s worth of work, there are existing datasets one could mine—but the time horizon (since the legalization of birth control) is so short and the social context regarding reproduction has been shifting so heavily during this period that any predictions you make would end up being barely guesses. Fortunately, the subset of plausible futures in which this matters is absurdly small. The world would essentially have to enter into technological and social stasis for many thousands of years, and well. Uhm. No.
The marching morons has a lot to answer for, really, since variations on this is an idea that crops up like weed, and it is a pretty absurd scenario.
This is kind of an relevant argument because it means this—despite my non-political phrasing—is really a political topic because the opinion coalition effects are possibly much stronger than any solid predictions to be had. Or to rephrase this: Any actual biological effect is outweight by memetic effects.
I beg to differ.