<p>
The goal of natural selection is to out compete other organisms by passing your genes to as many children as possible. We don’t TYPICALLY have more than two or three survive into adulthood, but under natural selection you would WANT to. I’m not saying adoption is right or wrong, I’m saying it’s evolutionarily curious because you are expending resources on something that does not carry your genes.
Evolution/natural selection does NOT keep our population in check; limitations on resources and competition from others do. In fact, in order to be as “evolutionarily successful” as possible, an individual does not want the population of its fellow individuals kept in check at all.</p>
<p>That is why there is an “overpopulation problem” today - humans became TOO successful. This makes sense from an individualistic standpoint, because given the opportunity to have more kids, one would typically take it. Our natural instincts created by eons of natural selection led to the current population problem. Things generally stay in equilibrium, as other organisms evolve a way to counter another organisms competitive advantage, but with humans, this does not exist. Because of this lack of competition, especially in the past 100 years, population has exploded.</p>
<p>Basically my point is: according to have evolution, we’re supposed to have as many kids as feasible. It has become more feasible to have more kids. Therefore, more kids. That leads to overpopulation.</p>
<p>What I was saying is curious about this situation is that people with the means to have another child are adopting other people’s children, instead of having their own. From an evolutionary standpoint, this is unprecedented. </p>
<p>No other organisms has ever become so successful that it has had to impose limits on itself. Interesting, would you agree?</p>