A Weakening of the gene pool

[Doggy Styles]

Clever women are having less children because of careers and other stuff.

But the four-kids-by-different-fathers chavette has adapted to survival pretty well.

[BlackenedBiker]

what I meant was this.
In the olden days, a person who was less 'fit' would not survive, when the pressures of survival were brought to bear.
for the sake of argument - a person who had a genetic disposition to a weak immune system. Therefore the genetic weakness is not passed on and , so the theory goes, will eventually disappear.
Nowadays, that person is kept alive.
Does this represent a weakening of the gene pool ?

Are Homo sapiens altruistic (I mean apart from on this board). As such the species is pre-disposed to keep members of the group alive. Now and 100,000 years ago

[dinker]

Only 40% of female graduates will ever have a baby.

[cailin maith]

Only 40% of female graduates will ever have a baby.

Crikey - thats quite an interesting statistic. Dinker did you make that up or is it real?

[snaw]

Only 40% of female graduates will ever have a baby.

Link please.

[Andy2]

Clever women are having less children because of careers and other stuff.

But the four-kids-by-different-fathers chavette has adapted to survival pretty well.

I think its a Nu labor plan to remove intelligent people from the gene pool
because they don't vote labour.
Survival of the dumbest

[KentPhilip]

ok.
So you have the situation where the poor immune system gene is allowed to propogate through the population, which is propped up by technology.
The prop gets kicked away.
A population CAN become too tiny.

goto OP

Ah but the prop can never fully be kicked away. It might be kicked away for most people, but there will always be some resources left to support the variety.
Then when conditions change (again) to become favourable to one of those varieties they will procreate like rabbits and generate lots of props for everyone else.

Or in other words the variety does not result in a dominant society, but it does result in a society that is resiliant to adversity and changing circumstances, and can rise again from the ashes of a disaster.

[EternalOptimist]

and can rise again from the ashes of a disaster.

tell it to the dinosaurs

[Board Game Geek]

person who had a genetic disposition to a weak immune system. Therefore the genetic weakness is not passed on and , so the theory goes, will eventually disappear.
Nowadays, that person is kept alive.
Does this represent a weakening of the gene pool ?

Not necessarily.

I have a genetic weakness (MS) and fortunately I have not, and will not add to the gene pool.

Deliberately having children when you have a known malady which can be genetic is at the least, irresponsible, and at the worst, cruel by condemning your offspring to your own disease.

[expat]

Not necessarily.

I have a genetic weakness (MS) and fortunately I have not, and will not add to the gene pool.

Deliberately having children when you have a known malady which can be genetic is at the least, irresponsible, and at the worst, cruel by condemning your offspring to your own disease.

Sometimes there is no neutral ground, and IMHO this is one of those times. As you say, it might be irresponsible or cruel knowingly to pass it on; but OTOH deliberately not to do so is an act of principle and courage.