Re: Perpetual change

From: Wade T.Smith (
Date: Sat Apr 28 2001 - 22:09:16 BST

  • Next message: "Re: Irreducibility of subjectivity (was Re: Levels of explanation (was Re: Determinism))"

    Received: by id WAA10197 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:13:31 +0100
    Subject: Re: Perpetual change
    Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:09:16 -0400
    x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
    From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    To: "Memetics Discussion List" <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
    Message-ID: <[]>
    Precedence: bulk

    Hi Kenneth Van Oost -

    >I don 't know, and again I could be mistaken completely, but IMO this
    >sounds more and more like an attempt of some dark conservative out-
    >post to get woman back again behind their stove.

    I'm not at all sure _that_ agenda was behind any of this.

    >Cultural factors such as religion and education had virtually no genetic
    >component. But one major determinant which did was the age at which women
    >started having children. The earlier women had their first child, the
    >"fitter" they were. This makes sense - women who have their first child
    >early have more time to have more children, and a shorter generation time
    >also means more descendants.
    >The surprise was that across all groups in society, the age at which
    >women had their first child was genetically inherited. After accounting
    >for cultural factors, 23% of the variation in age was down to genes.

    The main conclusion here, I think, is that of determining how long a
    woman remains of child-bearing and societal/cultural fitness, and, it
    seems to show that early child-bearing has an impact on extended and
    active child-bearing. The woman who puts off bearing a child until later
    in life dies earlier, or is more incapacitated by disease and infirmity-
    among the sampled set of twins in Australia....

    Now, I will make a perfectly invalid and personal comment here, but, I'm
    not sure I know about too many wizened old crones serving as 'grannies'
    to the community who were career women through their adult stretch.

    There was another study I remember reading somewhere that claimed that
    modern women menstruate far more than nature designed for them to do by
    not having children. But, yeah, who knows? We are not in the veldt
    anymore, or the caves, and we really don't _need_ to make the amount of
    babies we once did, but, who's telling nature that?

    Putting off child-bearing until late in life is a cultural decision,
    quite at odds with the biological body (especially since there are many
    and good statistics that show girls are reaching puberty earlier than
    ever)- many of the emancipated women in the seventies and eighties and
    nineties started moaning about biological clocks, and started
    single-parent families to answer this urge. The so-called Murphy Brown
    syndrome. I won't even start to begin to wonder if some conversions to
    lesbianism were cultural results of some of this... (although I have no
    reason to doubt that there could be strong cultural reasons behind much
    of sexual behavior).

    If there's any agenda behind this particular study, maybe it's in that
    nebulous place that Gaia resides, along with the ghost of Malthus.

    - Wade

    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 : Sat Apr 28 2001 - 22:16:56 BST