In the field of metaethics, there is an argument known as the “evolutionary debunking thesis,” which argues that the source of our ethical intuitions is not some detectable moral reality but the forces of evolution. From this perspective, the reason people think it is wrong to murder is because evolution programmed that belief into them. When groups rejected that belief, they likely ended up killing too many among themselves, hindering their ability to pass on their genes. Cultures with no aversion to incest probably did not produce long-lasting lineages due to inbreeding depression.
Even if the evolutionary debunking view is incorrect, it’s at least the case that the beliefs people hold are influenced by their genes. Political and social views, like all psychological traits, are heritable (Hatemi & McDermott, 2012). This means that the beliefs of people today were influenced by who had children in the past, and the beliefs of the future are influenced by who is having children today.
It’s feasible that the influence of ideology is much larger now due to the relatively recent development of effective contraceptives and the availability of safe abortion. If you actually have some ideologically motivated desire to avoid having children, you can realize this goal. Whereas in the past, you probably ended up with children anyway.
Political and social views that influence attitudes about having children, directly or indirectly, will influence the frequency of genes associated with those attitudes. For example, someone who is so concerned about the impacts of climate change that they choose not to have children will not pass on the genes that predispose them toward that view. A couple who delays reproduction out of a belief that their children should have access to private schooling and a large home may find themselves having fewer children due to fertility issues. Perhaps more critically, couples who are too impulsive to use any form of contraceptive will have more children than their more careful peers.
This phenomenon is concerning, as some traits I care about reduce fertility. As a simplified example, imagine a world consisting solely of Effective Altruists and the global poor. Imagine all EAs totally disregarded genetic influence and made the simple calculation that you can raise a biological child in the United States for ~$300K or you can save ~100 lives for $3K, and concluded they should donate to save lives rather than have children. The result of this preference for charitable giving would be a gradual decline in the genes associated with cost-effective charitable giving and an increase in those associated with needing financial assistance. Unfortunately, a similar scenario exists at the national scale; poorer countries tend to have higher fertility than the more developed and charitable countries.
This is not to say we should give up on aiding the less fortunate or making altruistic donations. It is to say it is crucial to consider the second-order effects of our actions if we care about the long-term future.
Highly religious conservatives who believe it is their God-given duty to go forth and multiply might like the idea of a future where they are much more represented. However, secular progressives and Effective Altruists might have more trouble accepting this idea. Although they may recognize this reality, it's difficult to envisage it actually motivating someone to have more children unless they were already inclined to do so.
Perhaps an alternative to increasing your social or political tribe’s fertility rate is to enable the genes associated with traits you care about to gain prominence through advances in genetic enhancement technology. By their own volition, parents using reprogenetic technology like polygenic embryo screening or gene editing will select traits that are widely valued (e.g., health, intelligence, prosocial behavior, income-earning potential, kindness).
By selecting desirable traits, the risk of a child having a harmful ideology will be reduced inadvertently. Probably, few ideologues would intentionally choose not to have a smart and kind child due to the risk of the child abandoning their ideology. It is hard to envision parents making such a deliberate choice.
I would expect most people to think intellectual and personality enhancement would cause their child to follow in their footsteps since their view is good and moral. Likewise, advocates for low-fertility beliefs would also think that widespread adoption of genetic enhancement would actually increase the number of people sharing their views. If you believe your moral perspective is correct, you should think that greatly increasing intelligence and prosocial behavior would make people more sympathetic to it.
Advocating for an acceleration of research into genetic enhancement will help to create people who are much smarter, cooperative, kind, and conscientious. If you think that will increase the prominence of your beliefs, perhaps you should advocate for this, especially if you do not want children of your own. Helping to increase the adoption of this technology allows you to have a genetic impact on future generations, even if you choose not to have children yourself.
This is all nice and good, but IVF and embryo selection will forever be a niche market unless there is high state intervention. People with IQ of 100 are not reading this article and they don't care much for IVF or embryo selection for high IQ.
Interesting discussion. I see this is more a long-term discussion since it seems that we do not have a firm grasp on nature vs nurture yet.