The dream to do X is conceptual and there is anything inherently different about this desire other than cultural cues which is my point. — schopenhauer1

No, it's not like Dream X and it's not culture-dependent. That's why population control initiatives never work from the top down. Look how crazy the Chinese got when they were restricted to one child per couple. Their preference for boys was cultural, but they didn't stop having unauthorized babies, any more than Indian men signed up for vasectomies. The fear of infertility is far more visceral and less intellectual than the desire to fly or be famous. It's often a consuming obsession like religion and patriotism. Those widely-held obsessions drive a good deal of human behaviour, both individual and collective. So I don't get your point or how it negates the premise of the book.
(I should probably have read the book before I commented.)

The fear of infertility is far more visceral and less intellectual than the desire to fly or be famous. It's often a consuming obsession like religion and patriotism. Those widely-held obsessions drive a good deal of human behaviour, both individual and collective. — Vera Mont

So this flows into the prior conversation I was having with @Srap Tasmaner on evolutionary psychology. There is nothing inherent in the desire for (children). I don't think you can prove it's any more than a culturally contrived (albeit strongly promoted). There is nothing inherent in it. Also, the loss of it, is not going to implode our psychological makeup and make us bomb-throwing nihilists or even suicidals. You still must not starve, stay comfortable, and find some entertainment. You keep doing what you do albeit with one less thing that you can achieve.

If anything, it's simply fear of missing out, but that goes with a lot of other desires. And anyways, that fear isn't really a thing if the very achievement is no longer an option for anyone (not just you).

:fire: :up:

There is nothing inherent in the desire for (children). — schopenhauer1

Then why do stags and rams bash one another's brains out for the privilege? Why do peacocks and lyre birds encumber themselves with those ridiculous tails? The genetic imperative is far, far older than humans. True, we have produced some individuals who resist the impulse and even a few who never experience it at all, but I think we are a minority. And you're right, I can't prove it.

Also, the loss of it, is not going to implode our psychological makeup and make us bomb-throwing nihilists or even suicidals. — schopenhauer1

Not the bomb-throwing part, probably - unless someone convinces the disappointed would-be parents that a specific agency is responsible.
But suicide, yes, that happens.

And anyways, that fear isn't really a thing if the very achievement is no longer an option for anyone — schopenhauer1

That just makes it a shared grief, which can quite possibly lead to mass hysteria - which can end anywhere.

I happen not to have procreated, by choice, so I'm not projecting my own feelings onto other people. I've seen the effects of the desire, the fulfillment of that desire and the frustration of failure on other people. It's real.

Then why do stags and rams bash one another's brains out for the privilege? Why do peacocks and lyre birds encumber themselves with those ridiculous tails? The genetic imperative is far, far older than humans. True, we have produced some individuals who resist the impulse and even a few who never experience it at all, but I think we are a minority. And you're right, I can't prove it. — Vera Mont

As per the EP thread, the process for reproduction is largely learned, not innate. What is innate is simply the pleasure aspect. The fact that it's directed to another person, and the whole artifice of courting/initiating/romancing/marrying etc. is largely cultural. It's so embedded in the culture that it seems innate. We also (as you seem to be doing) make false analogies. Because birds and mammals display various elaborate behaviors, that must mean our elaborate behaviors come from the same origin. A bat and a bird fly, but not for the same evolutionary reasons. They are only superficially similar. The same with the human's cultural way of mating versus other animals who have a more if/then biological origin (e.g. if this time of season, then do that, etc.).

Other animals do not have conceptual thinking, self-awareness, language, and cultural transmission of the kind or degree of humans. How can we really compare? I'm not saying that we don't have some innateness. Fear, fascination seems innate for example. Some vague sense of injustice seems pretty close to innate. But our brains are ready for plasticity more than activating modular if/then programming.

That just makes it a shared grief, which can quite possibly lead to mass hysteria - which can end anywhere. — Vera Mont

Would it?

As per the EP thread, the process for reproduction is largely learned, not innate. — schopenhauer1

How would that work? Chimpanzees do it instinctively, but then humans come along, have forgotten all about the instinct that drives so much animal behaviour, yet desire to perform an act for pleasure that they have to learn? From where would a culture materialize, if people didn't already reproduce? Why would religions surround this one activity with so much taboo if people were devoid of the animal drive?

Because birds and mammals display various elaborate behaviors, that must mean our elaborate behaviors come from the same origin. — schopenhauer1

No. Because humans have the same origin as birds and mammals. Because the drive to replicate our genetic material is innate, we behave like all the other terrestrial creatures that have the same drive.

How can we really compare? — schopenhauer1

I'm not comparing behaviours; I'm pointing out the evolutionary antecedents. Having a greater degree of cognitive flexibility doesn't exempt an entire species from biology.

I'm not comparing behaviours; I'm pointing out the evolutionary antecedents. Having a greater degree of cognitive flexibility doesn't exempt an entire species from biology. — Vera Mont

Look at some of most notorious EP tropes. Many times it goes like "Men do this but women do that". How do we know that it isn't all just culture? For example, "Men are interested in the breeding potential of a women subconsciously, and a women is interested in the ability to gather resources from men." That kind of behavior is so complex and conceptual-based, that it is extremely difficult to tie that to any biologically selected module. Rather, if it is seen cross-culturally, it may be because it's simply "what works" sociologically. But that is selecting for cultural practice rather than biological cognitive module.

Also, it could just be how individuals process various social activities. This processing isn't itself inherent, but how the person interacts with a social environment. You have to learn to want the thing before you get jealous over it. You have to learn to want X, Y, Z mate to get jealous, or sad, or angry, or disappointed for not having it.

This kind of phenomena can be directed at anything really.

Okay.

But that is selecting for cultural practice rather than biological cognitive module. — schopenhauer1

If you're sure, you're sure.

This is where I quote Socrates on knowing.

his is where I quote Socrates on knowing — schopenhauer1

Or, rather, Plato, quoting Socrates, according to Plato.