Via Don Boudreaux we find this:
The strong instinctual drive to have children is a vestige of the need to procreate in order to preserve the human species.
The drive to procreate is a function of the urge to perpetuate ones\’ own genes. It has, quite literally, fuck all to do with the species.
Ecopsychology recognizes the interconnection among all beings and the concept of the ecological self—an expanded sense of self that includes the entire web of life. In this view, self-preservation is synonymous with preservation of all beings and ecosystems.
So that\’s an attempt at a science that we can safely ignore then.
It does puzzle me, I have to admit.It\’s the religious fundamentalists who tend to deny evolution and they do tend to be conservatives as well. It\’s, in the American political universe, the \”liberals\”…..ie the lefties….who are all onboard with evolution. But it\’s also those very same liberals and lefties that then go on to resolutely ignore the implications of evolution. As here: it ain\’t a societal thing, it\’s not a collective thing, it\’s not a species thing or drive. It\’s an individual thing.
Perhaps we could annoy them by repeatedly pointing out that, among those from the last couple of millennia, Ghengis Khan has been the most successful human being in evolutionary terms? The person who has come closest to winning the game?