Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id FAA19618 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:23:47 GMT From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <f5.176e3b89.29a72e92@aol.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:18:10 EST Subject: Re: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
In a message dated 2/17/2002 8:01:38 PM Central Standard Time,
AaronLynch@aol.com writes:
> > In a message dated 2/15/2002 7:19:03 PM Central Standard Time, Keith
> > Henson
> > <hkhenson@cogeco.ca> writes:
> >
> > > That's true, and the correlation may be causal, but it could also be
> > > that education is causally linked to wealth. Of course, the really
> > > interesting thing is why people of high wealth don't spend it all on
having a
> > > dozen children. At one time they did, and in some cultures,
particularly
> > > Islamic they still do.
> > >
> > > Keith
> >
> > Hi Keith.
> >
> > There is some novel analysis of why the rich do not have large
> > families in my chapter "Evolutionary Contagion in Mental Software,"
> > [in The Evolution of Intelligence, edited by Robert J. Sternberg and
> > James C. Kaufman, 2001 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, and
> > online as http://www.thoughtcontagion.com/evintel12.htm.]
> >
> > Here is an excerpt:
> >
> > "... In a mixture of socioeconomic and ideological evolution,
> > those whose beliefs lead to small family sizes tend to subdivide
> > their wealth less often over the generations. This allows their
> > small-family mores to disproportionately accumulate at higher
> > socioeconomic strata. In other words, parentally transmitted
> > mores that cause large family size may thereby also reduce
> > the average host wealth by subdivision, leading to a negative
> > wealth to family size correlation. (Remember the adage that
> > correlation does not imply causation.) Additionally, strong
> > beliefs in college education can reduce family sizes by delaying
> > parenthood, while simultaneously causing higher per capita
> > income for those who hold strong procollege ideas. Overall,
> > multiple ideas leading to small families can cause wealth
> > concentration, rather than wealth concentration directly causing
> > smaller family size. Hence, there is no inherent inconsistency
> > between a negative wealth to family size correlation and the
> > hypothesis that increasing the earning power of a randomly
> > (or nonrandomly) chosen subpopulation can lead to more
> > children for that subpopulation. ..." [p. 312]
>
> To the online version of the chapter, I have added the following
> post-publication footnote that clarifies the section quoted above:
>
> "11 POST-PUBLICATION NOTE: In other words, it may be true that
> A: Increasing the wealth of an average individual increases
> their average reproduction,
>
> B: Controlling reproduction by an average individual increases
> their average wealth concentration,
>
> But that factor B is stronger than factor A, so that controlling
> reproduction concentrates wealth more effectively or intensely
> than acquiring wealth causes reproduction. This allows for
> increasing the wealth of an average individual to increase their
> average reproduction even in a society where there is a
> negative correlation between wealth and fertility. "
>
> --Aaron Lynch
>
I've expanded the footnote in the online version of this paper with
the passages quoted below. I suppose I could work up a whole
research project on the subject of negative wealth to fertility
correlations, especially given the social and scientific implications
that have been attached to the subject. The most recently added
text is as follows:
"... In such a society, most of the negative wealth to reproduction
correlation would be attributable to the multi-generation wealth
concentrating effects of people limiting reproduction. In any one
generation, limiting reproduction saves the large sums of extra
money it takes to raise large families. It also limits the ability of
couples to have two breadwinners working outside the home,
especially in demanding but lucrative careers. Women who do
not intentionally keep their families small often become
stay-at-home mothers. Men who do not intentionally keep their
families small may come to feel more constrained from pursuing
risky careers that have higher average expected earnings but
also higher variance in earnings, in which the high variance in
earnings poses an unacceptable risk to the other family members.
Such men might then forego lucrative but risky entrepreneurial
ventures in favor of stable careers with less growth potential.
Between generations, those who limit their reproduction can
spend more money on their children's educations and careers,
thereby allowing the children to not only inherit more money, but
also to earn higher annual incomes. The wealth concentrating
effects both within and between generations for limiting of
reproduction may exceed the reproduction-promoting effects of
money going to an average individual.
One way to study the causal effect of wealth on reproduction
(even in societies where the two are negatively correlated) is to
compare the post-winning reproductive careers of lottery winners
versus non-winners who bought the same numbers of tickets at
the same locations. If the winners exhibit higher reproduction rates
after winning, it would suggest that wealth does have at least some
fertility-promoting effect. ..."
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 05:33:51 GMT