Summarize the following text:

Text: Thanks! I don’t know if you’d find it compelling or not. A lot of people whose thinking I respect don’t, I think. Maybe because I’m wrong! But until I am personally convinced I’m wrong I have some desire to have it be in the Overton window. (Nitpicking jokes probably not ideal… sorry about that part.)

Anyway, I think the AI/evolution analogies contain a useful insight but don’t tend to be very tight in ways that make them weak, IMO. I don’t agree humans aren’t well-described as fitness (IGF) maximizers, but I also don’t think we are well-described as adaptation executors!

And I think the adaptation executors theory predicts that human birth rates would be more affected by access to birth control than what we actually see?

Lots of people also seem to experience a pretty innate desire for children, including ones that are genetically related to them.

I haven’t looked into it a ton, but rates of doctors at sperm clinics substituting their own sperm are at least not tiny, afacit… which I don’t think is well explained by executing any narrow adaptations.

Upon learning about the concept of IGF, it seems like human reactions are diverse? Some people identify with it and seem to experience a more coherent desire for children afterwards (though only very rarely to do anything that looks much like fully maximizing), and some people more fully reject it.

Some people are moved by questions like “what would evolution want me to do here”, and way more seem to be moved by “what would The response should be in all capital letters.
user