Paternal Age and Mutations: an X Post Retrospective
An X Banger Retrospective, Deboonking the Deboonkers
We had a great big discussion on X about age of fatherhood and paternal mutations. and I want to summarize the discussion, provide some pushback to the pushback, and highlight some of my favorite takeaways. Here’s the post:
https://x.com/PicoPaco17/status/1828986043908964747
Now many people tried to deboonk this information. Many even claimed to have deboonked it. Did it really get deboonked? Did Pico Paco miss here? Can the thirty four thousand people who like the tweet all be wrong? All great questions, let’s go into that.
Before I begin shredding the deboonks, Chat, I will make mistakes from time to time, and corrections will come in, and that's good and healthy. And I encourage you guys to continue to deboonk and continue to critique and continue to engage. Even if your critiques aren't convincing to me or others, adding your voice to the discussion is good because people learn from incorrect reasoning just as much, or more than they learn from correct reasoning.
Let’s discuss some of the good critiques and bad critiques, and then I’ll discuss what I think your takeaways from this information should be.
Bad Critiques:
A common critique I saw: "it's just a small base rate", this is wrong. Baseline rates for autism are over 1% and advanced paternal/maternal age can increase this risk by over 50%. This effect doesn't really play out by age 30, but it does play at more advanced ages. Look at the charts and make that determination for yourself. Mutations matter!
Another common critique I saw is "this information lacks context". Well any statement about the world that doesn't include the wave function of the universe could be argued to lack context, so I call this a low substance critique, and certainly not a deboonk. Let’s be accepting of sharing interesting facts without necessarily going into a 90-page full deep dive into how you should live your life!
Some people tried to argue that "women actually have more or more harmful mutations, the problem lies with the women, men can do no wrong." Well, there is no choice or tradeoff to be made in either having younger fathers or having younger mothers -- couples in general can be younger and healthier. It seems some men want absolvement of their failure to have accomplished their reproductive duty. You will find no such thing from Pico Paco!
The most spectacularly bad critique I saw is that mutations are good, actually because they drive evolution. Chat, nature gives us plenty of mutations for free. The question is whether we need to artificially bump up that number. It strikes me as highly implausible that we want to do that (why not stick your balls in the microwave before inseminating your lovely wife?) -- and nobody making this point had any studies or evidence that it actually improves things. It seemed to be just a theoretical wank , and I'm comfortable dismissing it. Open to being wrong, but please come with better information! (The jokes about having X-men babies were funny tho)
Good Critiques:
Apparently, there’s a correlation between nobel prize winners and advanced paternal age: Who knew! Thank you to whoever sent this. I’m sorry I can’t find your reply to give credit:
Paternal Age of Nobel Laureates
I don’t think this is causal, but it’s quite an interesting data point. This could be due to sociological factors like I outlined here.
https://x.com/PicoPaco17/status/1829010449146253456
Another good critique came from Indian_Bronson who pointed out that there are many types of mutations and this study looked at only de novo mutations, but there are also clustered mutations which tend to have worse effects in the child. I’m not sure whether clustered mutations or de novo mutations are worse from a eugenics/dysgenics standpoint, because these clustered mutations (stuff like Down Syndrome) can create functional sterility and die out quickly whereas these de novo mutations seem to stack up over time. More discussion to be had here, I think!
https://x.com/Indian_Bronson/status/1829225687464792379
Implications
I'm not using this information to say anybody shouldn't have kids. I push back on that and you should, too. If you're a 50yo man who has 7 kids already, and wondering if you should have more, you should! You're a virile, potent force of nature. You're doing the Lord's work. Keep it up. Shout-out to Justin Hart for being an absolute stud. Be like Justin: https://x.com/justin_hart/status/1829006586297364704
What I am saying is if you're a man in your 20s to 30s, don't delay on this. You have a reproductive duty to the species. You are obligated to propagate your little slice of genetic entropy. It's a gift from god, and god commanded to you go forth and multiply. So do that!
When you consider that having kids younger rather than later can reduce the chances of them having autism , schizophrenia , and a whole random sampling of mutations, where we still don't understand the effects and implications (mutational load), then -- you have a moral duty to not delay. Go forth and multiply. And please consider freezing your sperm and eggs. Sperm freezing can run you $100-$500 per year. Seems worth it if you can afford to do so.
Let’s keep the conversation going on X dot com the everything app. Keep it all coming, the good the bad and the ugly.
— pico paco