Does natural selection not apply to human society since the wealthiest and educated have the fewest kids?

Question

Please limit your responses to relevant discussions about evolutionary biology. I would give a low rating to anyone advocating eugenics, suggesting that we stop helping the poor, or trying to convince people that forced sterilization is a good idea.

Answer 1

Evolution does apply to human society. And it is only in America within the past few generations that the wealthy and educated have started bearing the fewest children. In England during the 16th-19th centuries, for example, the educated upper-middle class had more children than the poor, and their children had a better chance of surviving to adulthood and reproducing.

Answer 2

Natural selection still applies, but it's harder to see, because we have cultural differences that disguise it.  More people who may have been taken out of the gene pool in childhood (I'm thinking of genetic diseases or abnormalities that may show up in childhood - heart defects are one example) are able to receive treatment and are thus able to make it to reproducing ages and can pass along their genes to the next generation.  In societies where that healthcare is  not available, those genes are not passed on and would eventually be taken out of that society.  This would be natural selection at work.

I'm not sure why you think that wealthy and educated people having fewer kids is the result of some sort of natural selection.  1) How did you come to this conclusion and where did you find it?  2) This is also cultural, not natural.  Don't you think perhaps that the wealthy and educated know better the consequences of unprotected s*x, and are also able to purchase birth control means?  Or that in other (poorer) cultures, having many children is important so that they may be able to support larger extended families or elderly parents in the future?  I don't see how your wealthy/educated comments are relevant.

Answer 3

I would think it does apply.  But it applies differently in different situations.  For example, the Chinese have hurt their chances of survival by killing off baby girls.  Now they are scurrying to figure out how they will reproduce and insure the survival of their race.   Americans don't have a problem with reproducing, but they are very much into quality of life so the wealthy and educated tend not to have too many children.  The poor population is growing disproportionately large. Unfortunately, its the wealthy population which supports the poor population.  As the wealthy base decreases, the hand-outs for the poor decrease.  Both classes  suffer the consequences.

Answer 4

no, Natural selection does'nt apply to humans as we rely on money, those who are rich can be the most unfitest beings on the planet and still survive, whereas animals have no money at all and  rely on their physical abilities.

Answer 5

Absolutely it does apply but not in the way we think it logically should.  From an evolutionary standpoint those people having more children are actually evolutionarily ahead of the curve.  They may have a higher death rate but they have a higher birth rate that more than compensates.  From a science standpoint it is those who successfully continue their genetic strands down through the generations that are "more fit".  Think about the haves and the have-nots, if there are more have-nots they will eventually take over the haves.  It is just a matter of time.  And while we may not like the fact that the "fit" portion of the population is less educated, we do our best to educate everyone.  In the same way there were race lines that were drawn, there are class lines that are drawn, but those lines get crossed all the time in the melting pot.  Eventually it should level out. (At least in theory.)