[extropy-chat] darfur EP

[Martin Striz]

On 5/1/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> >The standard explanation involves industrialization, not globalization
> >per se.  Children are an asset in agrarian societies, because they
> >provide extra hands for labor, and they produce more than they cost.
> >Children are a liability in industrialized societies, where they
> >produce little until they are adults but cost a lot to rear.  In
> >short, in industrialized socities, parents lose money on their
> >children, which makes large families prohibitively expensive.
>
> I am well aware of the standard explanation and there may be something to
> it,

Ah, well, you only cited one person, who didn't have an answer, so you
made it appear in your essay as though nobody has proposed an
explanation.

> but the very rich in western culture (plus Japan and China now) who
> could certainly afford lots of kids rarely have them.  Also, children as
> young as 5 were extensively used as workers in early factories.

Most people can't afford to have lots of kids.  How much does a child
cost to raise per year?  Perhaps $10,000?  That's not an unreasonable
estimate.  The median income in the US is $40,000, so that gives a
single wage earner enough for two kids (plus spouse).  People who earn
less can't even afford even that, but they get away with it by not
spending as much on each child.  Peope who earn more, particularly
more intelligent people, make a conscious decision not to have many
children.

> It does not seem to apply to all peoples (cultures?).  Look at the number
> of Saudi "princes."  That's support for industrialization being a factor.

Oil princes are absurdly rich, so of course they can have many
children, but I would hardly make the claim that the Middle East is
industrialized.  Industrialized in a single industry, maybe.

> The underlying EP theory is that *all* psychological traits including
> behavioral switches are the direct effect of selection or they are a side
> effect of something that was selected.  Capture-bonding would be an example
> of direct selection, drug addiction a side effect.

> I can't make a case for either for low birth rates.

You don't have to.  Not all human behavior is the product of
evolutionary hardwiring.  Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not
recurrent features of the EEA.  Most wealthy, intelligent people
simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size.

> I admit to being baffled.

It's not that complicated. :)

Martin