> Of course it is. The request was for a rationale to save
> Dawkinsism from an empirical difficulty, was it not? So
> I supplied one. And suggested an added benefit.
>
Yeah, well. Thinking about it from scratch, there is in fact no
empirical difficulty for the theory. The original question is actually
misconceived. While there were interesting and partway right shots at
answering it (I think Chuck was correct to speak about 'idealization' of
birth rates, and your comments about capitalism being unnatural are in
the right direction as well), no one has tried to show that the theory
is coherent and the 'anomaly' doesn't exist.
I don't have time to make this as well-phrased as I'd like, but think of it like this: DD has essentially said that the demographic shift is maladaptive (i.e. those who engage in the behaviour characteristic of the demographic shift - less kids - will find their genes represented in the population in decreased frequency in the next generation)(and this is right, contrary to any comments I made otherwise).
So far so good. The problem arises because it is then asserted that the existence of maladaptive behaviour refutes the theory. In other words: for the theory to make sense, only adaptive behaviour is permitted to take place.
But this isn't correct. Genetic changes in behaviour (and physiology, etc) occur on a random basis. Such changes can turn out to be adaptive, maladaptive, or neutral in terms of their effects. Maladaptive change is not barred by the theory, it is very much a part of it.
So no empirical difficulty actually exists here.
Eric