From: Metaqualia (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 19:08:17 MDT
> environment. As EO Wilson puts it, we are just incredibly lucky that over
> some threshold of wealth women drastically reduce the number of children
> they have. Otherwise wars would have killed upwards of two billion more
> the last century than they did.
Wouldn't perceived wealth relate to the abundance of resources still
available in the environment? As a population approaches the resource limit,
people should start getting poorer and poorer, since there isn't enough
stuff to go around; so why wouldn't women produce less children below some
certain threshold rather than above?
Also, from a woman's perspective, abundance of wealth means that kids need
to be less genetically endowed to make it, therefore there should be a
tendency toward making more children but faster (less body weight at birth).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT