From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Wed Jul 29 1998 - 01:14:02 MDT
In a message dated 7/28/98 10:12:07 AM, Robin Hanson wrote:
>I seriously doubt that; being rich has been associated with smaller families
well
>before there was any Coca-Cola. I am convinced that there has been a robust
and
>causal relationship between wealth and family size over the last few
centuries.
It's not *that* old. It's a 19th century phenomenom (still pre-Coca-Cola).
In the 18th century wealthy English on average had more children than
poor or middle class ones. I believe the first country to experience the
demographic transition, including the inversion of the traditional association
between wealth and fecundity, was France, shortly after the Revolution.
A point: the driving force is not wealth but female education. Wealth plus
uneducated women (some Muslim countries) = high birth rate; education plus
poverty (the Indian state of Kerala) = low birth rate. There's just a very
strong correlation between wealth and education, with causation probably going
in both (educated people tend to get rich and rich children tend to get
educated)
>I just don't think this relationship is evolutionarily stable; given enough
time,
>it would be reversed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:24 MST