"Fred Foldvary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is deciding not to have children against the interest of the genes? Because gene for "not wanting children" will not be around for too long, but only for one generation. > Note also that modern parents stop at one or two > children, rather than many, and is that too against the interest of the > genes? This is different situation. It might be good for your genes to "invest" all your time and money in one child or two children. Why? Well, instead of having 10 uneducated and poor children, you might want to have two highly educated and skilled children. In human society, where education and money matter in "sexual success" it makes sense. >Human genes endow people with the intelligence to choose not to > have children when the cost and risk are high. I can't really see a situation where decision not to have children is good for your genes. Maybe when you have a lot of brothers and sisters and no parents, so you invest your time and effort in them.... Or if it seriously threatens your own life if you decide to have children, like during wars and such. But even then, it is only "good" for your genes to postpone your decision until such "bad times" pass.