[Europan Ocean (OP)]

We all would know the concept of, survival of the fittest. Many fit people today have one or no children per couple. They love pleasures, have ambitions, and take the contraceptive pill... So this may mean over generations in the community of people who use the pill, that the survivors will be those who are passionate about having 2 to 5... children.

Could there be a survival of the passionate men and women who want five children at the dinner table? A change in the proportions of genes in favour of innately passionate parents?

Having this zest for life, does not mean they are what Darwin would describe as the fittest, the alternative is the passionate not the same as the fittest, not necessarily.

[Bored chemist]

What do you think the word "passionate" means?

[Europan Ocean (OP)]

What do you think the word "passionate" means?

Passionate about children and family life. We can normally afford a family in western countries. Not thinking of Laos...

Their leaning is in favour of loving children and having their own, with someone they love.

[Bored chemist]

OK, so "passionate" is about making sure you have kids.

What do you think "fittest" means in this context?

[Europan Ocean (OP)]

OK, so "passionate" is about making sure you have kids.

What do you think "fittest" means in this context?

So they have a passion for children not just wanting to make sure. And the fittest is not necessarily applicable to them, they aren't always the fittest. Fittest being athletic, brilliant, of sound mind, fertile, with longevity, strong immunity...

[Bored chemist]

Fittest being athletic, brilliant, of sound mind, fertile, with longevity, strong immunity...

OK, so the problem here is that you don't understand what "fittest" means in the context of "survival of the fittest".
Measles doesn't tick many of those boxes, but it's an evolutionary success.

[Peter11]

Humans dominated because we were the most dangerous and most violent killing off all other species and we breed like rabbits passion is not needed.We just hit 8 billion humans isn't that fast enough ?
Humans would of been a better species if they lived longer and breed less in my opinion.We have very little foresight being a short lived creature.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Could there be a survival of the passionate men and women who want five children at the dinner table? A change in the proportions of genes in favour of innately passionate parents?

    ... where you (European Ocean) made further posts suggesting that you really meant people who want a big family and would also care greatly for their offspring... leading to increased survivability of the offspring and new adults that have learnt more by being well supported by their parents for longer.... etc.

    So the short answer is then  YES.... that sort of thing can increase the survivability of the children and hence lead to an increase in these traits in the future population.

    As @Bored chemist was implying,      we could re-phrase   "survival of the fittest" as   just meaning   "survival of that which is most advantageous for survival".

   More generally, it is clear that "what is advantageous for survival" depends on the niche and challenges that a species has.    For example, frogs don't stay around to support their offspring much - they've evolved a different solution where they can have hundreds of offspring and it doesn't matter if most of them do not survive to adulthood.   However, for humans, then yes your  "family passion" trait could be something that offers a survival advantage.

    Note that on it's own, this trait is not enough.   To survive, there are still sabre-toothed tigers that must be fended off and you can't throw your family values at it to scare it away,  it doesn't ask and it doesn't care about your family values.   Similarly, the family must be resilient to disease   etc.  etc....  there's a whole set of evolutionary pressures where conventional "fitness" makes sense.   The phrase   "survival of the fittest" trips off the tongue more easily than "survival of that which is advantageous for survival".

Best Wishes.

[Bored chemist]

we breed like rabbits

Actually, we don't.
We have a much higher incidence of reproductive problems than any other species. Until fairly recently, we were in serious danger of getting wiped out.

[alancalverd]

Problems largely due to our having evolved a very large brain and bipedal stance, which combine to make childbirth extremely hazardous for both mother and child.

"Survival" demands a clear definition. Having developed the means to assure that the majority of our offspring reach maturity, humans are now in danger of outbreeding  our food and water supply: survival of the individual contradicts survival, or at least welfare, of the species.

Statistically, if Smiths produce more children than Joneses, eventually there will be more Smiths. But modern humans tend not to mate with close relatives or even near geographical neighbors, and the name we carry only reflects half of our parents, so the gene pool gets well stirred at each generation and some Smiths may be genetically closer to some Joneses than to some other Smiths.   

Society generally pressures the cleverest to study for the professions, thus delaying reproduction and saddling the intellectually fittest with massive debts, whilst the least intelligent are subsidised by a compassionate taxpayer throughout their reproductive years coz they av a right, innit.

[Europan Ocean (OP)]

People in poorer countries like India have several children each, and are at capacity for their land. China is also a bit like that but they enforced the one child per couple rule. Those couples mainly had or only allowed, boys to be born.

But avoiding that and looking at the west, the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, we have space for farms and housing and much food. And we have some families who are fit and healthy, only having one child per couple or none.

So returning to my OP could the trait of those couples who want a few children become more common over generations? Perhaps there are other traits linked to them that will also become more common. Other traits will become rare.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

So returning to my OP could the trait of those couples who want a few children become more common over generations?

   Evolution doesn't usually get to the most efficient solution if it would have to go over a disadvantageous interim stage.   Very occasionally, there is some big jump which might have been caused by something like a spontaneous change in the DNA  (e.g. random events like cosmic rays striking the DNA in the germ cells of the parents and giving rise to offspring with an advantage from the damaged DNA instead of what is more usually a disability due to the damaged DNA).   However most of the time, there is only some slow progress to what is more advantageous right now.   To re-phrase this, most of the time evolution only goes uphill, it can't reach the highest hill or "best solution" if it has to go downhill through a much worse valley to get there.
    Evolution isn't a personified thing, it has no preference or long term goal.  It just automatically goes where some advantage has started to appear.   Gene pools change only if more of one thing is getting into the future gene pool than another type of thing.
    It doesn't matter if some set of family values or family passion might be "best" in the long run (in someones view or by some other sort of analysis you could apply).   What must happen to make that trait more prevalent is that those with less of that trait don't reproduce as often and/or their offspring don't survive to adulthood where they will reproduce.
   So, a preference for just having one child doesn't tick the first box at all -  that is very limited reproduction and hence spreading of genes into the future gene pool.    It's only likely to become a more prevalent trait if society applies an evolutionary pressure to favour it.  You've mentioned population control measures in China already and there are numerous works of science fiction that describe situations where such pressures and population control measures might be applied.   You understand that simply limiting every couple to one child isn't quite enough,   you need to tip the balance so that those who would automatically choose one child are favoured and those who would choose to have 2 or more children aren't.   For example, you could have some existing compulsory organisation, let's say schools, give chemicals to children to make them sterile without the knowledge of the parents or anyone else,  that being done whenever a family has a second child.   It's all sinister, sci-fi horror stuff.
    So, for a short answer to your question and hoping that society doesn't take any dark turns,   then no, a preference for having only one child is not likely to become a prevalent trait in the future gene pool.

Best Wishes.

[Zer0]

I see Fertility Clinics have popped up around the World...

Surely, become a Parent has it's own Pleasures & Benefits..

But what this World Drastically needs, is an Infertility Bomb!

P.S. - ✌️

[Bored chemist]

So returning to my OP could the trait of those couples who want a few children become more common over generations?

In the  limit, no.
It reminds me of the reply Mark Twain gave when asked
"In a world without women, what would men become?"
"Scarce. Mighty scarce.”

[Petrochemicals]

India has a birth rate of 2.18, where as Afghanistan has a birth rate of over 4, as the society becomes more advanced the birth rate goes down, one problem China has now is many people will not even be having children what so ever.


The concept of this thread is also the plot of the movie "Idiocricy"

Bad language warning

[Bored chemist]

The concept of this thread is also the plot of the movie "Idiocricy"

Always a good idea to check spelling.

The idea that the idiots breed faster has always been around.
It's the usual excuse for eugenics.

[Europan Ocean (OP)]

I think the idiots can't afford too many children. And normally people like wit and wealth... Love and passion are also found in average people and are valued.

People also look for good looks and strength.

I'd say a huge number of poorer people, low income related to low IQ and low EQ  are pressured to abort their children. And they do, tens of millions of them. There is even a shortage of children in the US, and they'd fund many retirees. They'd pay tax, but life's worth ought not be measured with money. Also the USAF some years back was advertising for jobs in Australia, being short staffed.

I think passionate people if not high up there in IQ, they may have a good EQ. Passion will make most anyone desire to have their own family. And make sure their unborns survive.

People who use the pill and abortions, who marry the same traited people down the generations have a half life.

[Petrochemicals]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64387648