Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA21939 (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 23:21:20 GMT From: <AaronLynch@aol.com> Message-ID: <61.1b5f9866.29a82b29@aol.com> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:15:53 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 2/22/2002 4:00:35 PM Central Standard Time, Steve Drew
<srdrew_1@hotmail.com> writes:
> >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:18:10 EST
> From: <AaronLynch@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults
>
> 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. ..."<
>
> Hi Aaron.
>
> Although this could be taken cynically (and there probably is some element
> in it) money buys silence. Although there seem to be a fair few 'rock
stars'
> etc who have more than the average (2 ish?) via different females, we tend
> to find out because the journalists are looking for stories. OTOH, a rich
> businessman who few people have heard of, and cared about even less would
be
> able to buy silence as it would be in the womans interest, as the papers
> would not care, and i doubt that many people are inclined to blackmail.
>
> It is likely that until very recently it would be difficult to prove
> paternity.
>
> BTW, it seems to me that a lot of the lottery winners in the UK seem to be
> past their child producing years, which might skew your results :-)
>
> Regards
>
> Steve
Hi Steve.
Yes, the pool of lottery ticket buyers may not be representative
of the general population. That is why I suggested comparing
lottery winners to others who bought similar numbers of tickets
at the same locations.
One can compare groups of winners and ticket-buying
non-winners matched by age, socioeconomic background,
education, etc. Or if you have a really generous research ,
budget you could create a lottery in which everyone in the
country has an equal chance of winning, and that involves no
ticket purchases.
--Aaron Lynch
===============================================================
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 - 23:31:33 GMT