Another poster made the point that in America, very few children die before they are old enough to reproduce. That is true, of course, of the entire developed world. Mr. S notes the adaptation of humans to diseases like malaria and cholera. No similar selective development to diabetes, as Mr. S suggests, seems likely: the scientific advancement and affluence that have made all of those corn calories available also preclude any reproductive selection in response to diabetes. Humanity is at a crossroads. If the whole world, in 100 or 200 years, reaches the point the developed world has now - very few deaths before reproductive age, less than 2 children per woman - will human evolution have ceased? Or will a new kind of cultural selection, that of changing genetic makeup through scientific means, take the place of any normal reproductive selection?

Hi, jacroedga,

I think it is not just the dying off before reproduction that makes a difference in evolutionary terms, but failing to reproduce or reproducing at lower rates.

Fitter are those who produce the most offspring that can reproduce in their turn. High-IQ, high-SES are not well fit, in Darwinian terms, because they have few or no children. Is it bad? Who knows? When an impasse will be reached, the system will rebalance itself. I hope to depart before it happens.

That may have been true at one time but now with cloning and artificial reproduction on the horizon the smartest will truely be the fittest. There should not be a problem of reproduction for them.

ff64:

... with cloning and artificial reproduction on the horizon the smartest will truely be the fittest. There should not be a problem of reproduction for them.

Oy veh! Why should it excite those of us who are not going to be cloned? And how would artificial reproduction be of interest to traditionally high-investment-parenting groups? Isn't having children one of life's joys? Would child rearing be artificial too? Would artificial children come to visit their parents in a hospital?

Or maybe, parents won't be getting sick, so no need to worry about children visiting. We can finally go ahead and spend all their inheritance. So that's good, right?

But if children and parents will no longer be co-dependent, what interest will parents have in children and children in parents? All people being equal, everything will be zero sum.

How utterly boring!

The fact that high IQ people don't reproduce as much as others - which may or may not be true - would not be affected by cloning or other technologies.

A lack of genetic offspring is nearly always the result of a choice. New technology options are unlikely to change that choice. After all, the kids still need to be raised, and that's where lifestyle conflicts drive the choices of most non-parents.