Selfish genes & population demographics

[Gordon Fitch]

Daniel Davies:
>  I just got to thinking about this after some of the sociobiological
> musings on the polygamy thread ...
> 
> 1)  The stylised demographic facts appear to be that the birth rate falls
> as populations become wealthier, that this fall in the birth rate is due in
> significant measure to an increase in the number of childless households,
> and that within populations in both the developed and developing worlds,
> the incidence of childless households increases the further up the income
> distribution you go.
> 
> 2)  Is this not a very severe problem for most sociobiological theories, or
> for any theories which rely on "the desire to propagate genes" as being a
> major determinant of human behaviour?  At the very least, it is an anomaly
> to be explained away, that those members of society who might be thought to
> be best placed to have large families, tend not to.
> 
> The best the Dawkinsites I've spoken to seem to be able to come up with
> seems to be just-so stories about the management of large and small prides
> of man-cubs on the plains of Africa.  But I don't see how this can explain
> the decision to have no family at all.
> 
> anyone have any ideas?  I don't really think of lbo-talk as a den of
> sociobiologists, but I don't want to subscribe to any actual evolutionary
> psychology lists, as these things have a way of coming back to haunt one.

The anomaly seems easily explained by supposing that
industrial, capitalist wealth is _contra_naturam_, as it
certainly appears to be given certain concepts of _natura_.
(By contrast, the wealthy of a tribal society -- the man or
woman with many pigs or reindeer -- might be expected to
reproduce vigorously and successfully.) The wealthy are, then,
perverts of a sort and may be expected to behave in a deviant
manner.  

Feed that to the Dawkinsites and they'll all go off to sit 
at the feet of Zerzan, and we'll all be the happier for it.

-- Gordon