In my third post on the Age of Malthusian Industrialism, I suggested:
Somebody should really do a GWAS for fertility preferences before the idiocracy takes over.
Happily, it looks like some people have already started doing that.
Barban, Nicola et al. (2017) – Genome-wide analysis identifies 12 loci influencing human reproductive behavior
The genetic architecture of human reproductive behavior—age at first birth (AFB) and number of children ever born (NEB)—has a strong relationship with fitness, human development, infertility and risk of neuropsychiatric disorders. However, very few genetic loci have been identified, and the underlying mechanisms of AFB and NEB are poorly understood. We report a large genome-wide association study of both sexes including 251,151 individuals for AFB and 343,072 individuals for NEB. We identified 12 independent loci that are significantly associated with AFB and/or NEB in a SNP-based genome-wide association study and 4 additional loci associated in a gene-based effort. These loci harbor genes that are likely to have a role, either directly or by affecting non-local gene expression, in human reproduction and infertility, thereby increasing understanding of these complex traits.
Here’s a very interesting graph from the paper:
Over time, the physiological and personality traits correlated with higher fertility will also become more prevalent in the population. This suggests our r-selected descendants will develop more of a propensity to:
- Earlier menopause
- Much earlier age of first intercourse
- Much higher incidence of twins
- Slightly more underweight babies
- Much less education
- More smoking
- More neuroticism; less autism; not much change in other indicators of personality
- Shorter, fatter, higher waist-hip ratios
Not good. 🙁
Why doesn’t a willingness to shop at Walmart indicate a low time preference, where you try to satisfy your needs at cheaper prices? Walmart has operated on a marketing strategy to target frugal consumers, and frugality shows intelligence and the ability to think about consequences. For example, I recall that Audacious Epigone a few years ago blogged about a study which showed that American states’ average FICO credit scores correlate positively with their average IQ’s.
ROLE OF RELIGION AND CULTURE IN FAMILY SIZE.
Sir, you ignore the important role of culture (which defines the proper role of women) in age of marriage and family size, and smoking and drinking.
I have been to many white churches, and I have never heard a priest preach morals, such as:
Even the Catholic Pope is evil—he promotes the alien invasion, and wants more aliens to invade white nations, where they will steal, rape and murder white women, and has recently attacked Trump for the border wall.
http://fortune.com/2019/01/25/pope-francis-trump-walls/
That is why I read Kenneth Humphreys. And Paul Tice, instead of going to church on Sundays.
They also have good reading material for Sabbath too.
So…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn200lvmTZc
If true, and depending when on this effect is supposed to have started, a good little case study on phenotype vs. genotype.
‘Phenotype’: Huge declines in smoking, with seemingly each new age-cohort smoking less than the older ones: b.1990s < b.1970s < b.1950s < b.1930s < b.1910s. Or so is my impression. These long-term and sustained 'phenotype losses' for smoking (i.e., a lot fewer people are regularly smoking), conceal this purported 'genotype gain' for smoking.
In many poorer areas, Walmart is the only retailer and even the only grocery store. It has a local monopoly on retail in these areas. Moreover, Walmart is a monopsony and has great control as the dominant buyer from suppliers and the dominant buyer of labor in many areas.
But you also find Walmart stores in affluent areas, like in the better parts of metro Phoenix.
Yes, I know. The ones in nice areas are often much nicer Walmarts than the Walmarts in poor areas.
The people who go to Walmarts in nice areas with many options tend to be decently well off, not people of Walmart level.
There is no smoking genotype. It’s a social activity that went through a cycle of fashion. Just like its cousins tobacco chewing and tobacco sniffing, that have all but disappeared. Lower classes may both smoke more cigarettes and get knocked up more, creating this correlation – but once their kids don’t pick up this activity because it’s so out of fashion it would make them an embarrassment at school, poof it’s gone the way of chewing and sniffing.