Re: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults

Date: Fri Feb 22 2002 - 23:15:53 GMT

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: ality"

    Received: by id XAA21939 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 23:21:20 GMT
    From: <>
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:15:53 EST
    Subject: Re: draft abstract Sex, Drugs and Cults
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 113
    Precedence: bulk

    In a message dated 2/22/2002 4:00:35 PM Central Standard Time, Steve Drew
    <> writes:

    > >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 00:18:10 EST
    > From: <>
    > 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
    > 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
    > 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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 22 2002 - 23:31:33 GMT