> no population selection and reproduction algorithm
I never said there was. Darwin said it because he didn't know anything about genes, but that mistake was corrected by Dawkins.
> If gender equality and intellectual achievement don't produce children, then that isn't "darwinism selecting rationality out".
Why not?
> The people who believe in gender equality and intellectual achievement made the decision to not want more of themselves
That's the wrong way to look at it. Individuals are not the unit of reproduction. Genes are. Genes that build brains that want to have (and raise) children are more likely to propagate than genes that build brains that don't, all else being equial. So it is not rationality per se that is the problem -- rationality can provide a reproductive advantage because it lets you, for example, build technology. The problem is that non-rational brains can parasitically benefit from the phenotype of rational brains, at least for a while. But in the long run this is not a stable equilibrium.
I never said there was. Darwin said it because he didn't know anything about genes, but that mistake was corrected by Dawkins.
> If gender equality and intellectual achievement don't produce children, then that isn't "darwinism selecting rationality out".
Why not?
> The people who believe in gender equality and intellectual achievement made the decision to not want more of themselves
That's the wrong way to look at it. Individuals are not the unit of reproduction. Genes are. Genes that build brains that want to have (and raise) children are more likely to propagate than genes that build brains that don't, all else being equial. So it is not rationality per se that is the problem -- rationality can provide a reproductive advantage because it lets you, for example, build technology. The problem is that non-rational brains can parasitically benefit from the phenotype of rational brains, at least for a while. But in the long run this is not a stable equilibrium.