[extropy-chat] darfur EP

[Keith Henson]

At 03:21 PM 5/1/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>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.

Hrdy is perhaps the leading expert in this area.

> > 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.

The strong negative association between IQ and number of offspring is well 
known.  And given the high degree that intelligence is the result of 
genes--disturbing.  It would bother me a lot more if we were not at the 
very end of human intelligence being a factor.

> > 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.

It isn't at all as far as the population is concerned.  Desert nomads to 
welfare state in one jump.

> > 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.

Oh, I agree with you on this point.  Have you ever read _Will_ ?  G. Gordon 
Liddy overrode the reflex to draw back from being burned and kept his arm 
in a candle flame long enough he nearly burned through a tendon.

But the broad brush of human behavior is the result of evolved 
psychological traits--even down to such trivia as why people post on the net.

>Agrarian-industrialization shifts were not
>recurrent features of the EEA.  Most wealthy, intelligent people
>simply make a conscious decision to limit their brood size.

That may well be the case, but it does not help, it only moves the question 
down a level to why people have psychological traits to value one thing 
more than another?

> > I admit to being baffled.
>
>It's not that complicated. :)

Then why about 40 years ago did the Irish women suddenly cut the number of 
kids they had about in half?  Particularly why *then* and not ten or 20 or 
40 years plus or minus?

I appreciate the discussion and any insight anyone can bring to this subject.

Keith Henson