Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

davidfry t1_jc0rddf wrote

You saw the chart on the side about how autosomal dominance works? Two parents, one of which has the trait, will churn out kids, half of which have the trait. So if 2% have it now, unless this confers a substantial benefit in the survival and reproductive success, that percentage will likely stay the same for generations to come.

Also, the Notable People on your wikipedia link includes Donald Trump, who notably, does not have a lower body mass index than average. But his short sleep schedule is potentially less natural than chemical.

2

alex20_202020 OP t1_jc0saix wrote

> substantial benefit in the survival and reproductive success

Well. I somehow thought it does, success in what society values means more sex and more children.

I've watched Idiocracy, btw and know some studies show educated westerners tend to have less kids. So it (increasing of trait prevalence) is not definitive, I asked for arguing, which you did. Thanks a lot!

−2

Corsair4 t1_jc2fmtc wrote

>know some studies show educated westerners tend to have less kids

This isn't a westerner thing, this is a "literally every economically developed country, and most developing" thing.

Every economically developed country is under replacement rate. A lot of developing countries are dropping dramatically. India went from a rate of 6.something to replacement adjacent over the course of 50 years.

It has absolutely nothing to do with sleep schedules. Birth rate drops as a society becomes more economically developed, and - crucially - women have a greater emphasis on their own education and career.

4

alex20_202020 OP t1_jc2lvci wrote

Disclaimer: below is a hypothesis. Please argue against if know what to say, i like to argue.

Less sleep needed means one can more likely raise a child w/out sleep deprivation. So ones with the trait night have more kids on average. Hence back to my initial statement.

−4

aeusoes1 t1_jc1trji wrote

The problem with the theory behind ideocracy is that it assumes human variation in intelligence is largely genetic, which is unlikely.

1