The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2013, 09:34 PM
The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
Yep. There was natural selection, followed by sexual selection, and now socioeconomic selection. Women generally prefer men of middle-class and wealthy backgrounds, causing men of wealthy backgrounds to have a higher likelihood of reproducing.
Anyone agree with my hypothesis?
I mean, that's how I came into being!

Cool story, bro. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 12:05 AM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
Yes and No. People of lower socioeconomic status (at least in the US) tend to have kids just as much, if not much more than people of wealthier backgrounds thanks to welfare >.> But that's a very different topic.

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
- Sigmund Freud
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 12:11 AM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
The richer you are the less likely you are to have children. At least according to these studies.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/10/t...ior-goods/

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." Soren Kierkegaard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 12:21 AM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
You're still likely to kids, just not in a large quantity like poor people do.

Cool story, bro. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 06:29 AM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
(09-01-2013 12:21 AM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote:  You're still likely to kids, just not in a large quantity like poor people do.


Which means that people of higher socio-economic status are being selected against.
The gene pool contains higher proportions of those from lower socio-economic strata.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-01-2013, 08:14 PM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
Personally I think it has more to do with culture, economic status and education background than selection. How many wealthy, upper class people did what that stupid octo-mom did? Probably none. But like I said this is for a different topic.

"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
- Sigmund Freud
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 08:18 PM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
(09-01-2013 12:21 AM)Refuting_Ignorance_Every_Day Wrote:  You're still likely to kids, just not in a large quantity like poor people do.
You do understand what genetic selection is, right?

If the poor are having more kids than the wealthy, then your initial hypothesis is very wrong. End of story. Arguing that you're right because the wealthy still have kids just not as much as the poor is actually arguing against your initial point.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aseptic Skeptic's post
09-01-2013, 08:48 PM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
The disparity of wealth and economic mobility in the US are as bad as 3rd world countries. The truly wealthy only have up maybe 2% of the population. Thus they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the poor, regardless is they have and advantage or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 08:52 PM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
Thanks for informing me, guys.

Cool story, bro. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: The Era of Socioeconomic Selection
Reminds me of this:


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  How far can we go with artificial selection? Metazoa Zeke 22 305 09-04-2014 03:02 PM
Last Post: Hobbitgirl
  Natural selection inefficiency? BlackMason 17 401 18-02-2014 09:11 PM
Last Post: Youkay
  Homecoming and Natural Selection DreamWeaver 10 600 26-09-2012 07:24 PM
Last Post: UndercoverAtheist
  Random Mutations and Selection TheBeardedDude 0 301 17-05-2012 03:10 PM
Last Post: TheBeardedDude
  Cumulative vs Single-step natural selection: aka the Shakespearean Monkey Buddy Christ 1 1,959 16-06-2011 11:49 PM
Last Post: Lilith Pride
  Biology Nobelist:: Natural selection will destroy us trillium13 15 1,195 03-03-2011 10:12 PM
Last Post: daemonowner
Forum Jump: