"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.

Reply via email to