Fertility (= kids per adult) has been falling worldwide for centuries. It seems to be correlated strongly with societal (not individual) wealth, and mediated by norms transmitted via mass media. World elite culture supports falling fertility by celebrating professional
"Do we suppose that when a sub-culture member converts to the dominant culture, the same kind of zealotry effect happens as we see in converts to a religion?"
No. Because people convert in that direction because they notice that overall the subculture is not socially approved. That is why it is a subculture.
When someone converts to the subculture, on the other hand, they do it in spite of noticing that it is not socially approved. Which means they have extra strong motivations for adopting it, which are not necessary when converting to the dominant one.
That's one possibility. The other possibility is that the dominant elite culture will attempt to smash and dismantle the insular culture/s that threaten it, even if the elites have no viable replacement strategy at all. The power of spite should not be underestimated.
I'm also completely baffled as to why Hanson thinks that polyamory and swinging are going to rescue elite fertility when so far as I can tell he hasn't presented a lick of evidence to suggest there's a correlation.
Of course social factors are important, but might more basic biological factors promote higher fertility directly? What I mean is if social mores lead women to undergo fewer pregnancies per lifetime might that select for more multiple births, more twins and triplets? I assume the tendency toward multiple births has a high heritability, and, if so, then multiple births should become a more common outcome "forcing" women to raise more children despite what they might personally want.
I find this not a worrying thing, because fertility of elite culture would probably rise when worries of insular cultures dominating become more salient.
If an ordinary investment is expected to be worth money in the future, you can sell it near the end of your life to consume the proceeds. You can't sell your kids, and any productivity they have after you die is worthless to you.
It's useful to identify other tipping points like when this correlation begins to impact subgroups in order to evaluate Simpson paradox effects. For example, France is highly correlated, but the Congo not-so-much because France is rich and the Congo is not. In general, there should be an average to the age of human procreation where this correlation began to take-effect. If we drop below the population level of that age then the correlation may reverse. That's one way correlations describe events - lots of smokers = lots of lung cancer; fewer people smoke, and the correlation is still there, but now other causes of lung cancer begin to correlate in the same strength.
Interestingly the wealthier at level of schooling have more children. School gets in the way of having children and children get in the way of schooling.https://un-thought.blogspot...
There is one policy implication, make schools more parent and child friendly.
It seems to be correlated strongly with societal (not individual) wealth, and mediated by norms transmitted via mass media.
White American fertility (as measured by the ratio of children aged 0-5 to women aged 20-44) declined by 26% from 1870 to 1920. During that same period, black American fertility declined 39%.
I don't understand Robin's comment that children are not a good investment.
Investments like bonds, stocks, real estate, and other things depend on society allowing wealth to be stored and transferred in such vehicles. There is a systematic risk that a company will be taken over by the state, or a political revolt may declare your class not worthy of its stored wealth. But a child will still have the ability to think for itself and provide for its family despite a changing political situation. Even crypto smart-contracts have been reverted when society didn't want the wealth to go to a certain party (think the original Ethereum DAO).
This is incorrect. Large numbers of children are still used as retirement investment for people living in exceptionally poor countries today. For most of subsistence history, past the age of six or seven, kids also work & worked incredible hours. After a short period of growth they are effectively free child labor if you work in a field, in addition to all the free care you hope for as a 60 year old who can no longer work because you've performed dangerous labor your entire life.
Also make sure you remember that many such people have virtually no access to actual investment vehicles, or that really any "safe" method of investing weren't even invented yet while they were alive.
Regression to the mean and the complexity of intelligence genetics suggests we won't "breed for stupid".
Especially since if we were going to, we'd presumably never have gotten where we are now.
The Flynn Effect alone suggests otherwise; IQ continually rises over time, these past decades (for reasons nobody's quite sure of), even while "smart people have fewer kids" has been happening.
(But only certain kinds of smart people; it's culture, not intelligence.
I know a lot of VERY smart Catholics who have a LOT of kids; religious and unintelligent aren't the same.)
"Do we suppose that when a sub-culture member converts to the dominant culture, the same kind of zealotry effect happens as we see in converts to a religion?"
No. Because people convert in that direction because they notice that overall the subculture is not socially approved. That is why it is a subculture.
When someone converts to the subculture, on the other hand, they do it in spite of noticing that it is not socially approved. Which means they have extra strong motivations for adopting it, which are not necessary when converting to the dominant one.
That's one possibility. The other possibility is that the dominant elite culture will attempt to smash and dismantle the insular culture/s that threaten it, even if the elites have no viable replacement strategy at all. The power of spite should not be underestimated.
I'm also completely baffled as to why Hanson thinks that polyamory and swinging are going to rescue elite fertility when so far as I can tell he hasn't presented a lick of evidence to suggest there's a correlation.
Of course social factors are important, but might more basic biological factors promote higher fertility directly? What I mean is if social mores lead women to undergo fewer pregnancies per lifetime might that select for more multiple births, more twins and triplets? I assume the tendency toward multiple births has a high heritability, and, if so, then multiple births should become a more common outcome "forcing" women to raise more children despite what they might personally want.
Why do I have two different photos for the same account?
I find this not a worrying thing, because fertility of elite culture would probably rise when worries of insular cultures dominating become more salient.
Is "Swigging" a typo of "Swinging"?
If an ordinary investment is expected to be worth money in the future, you can sell it near the end of your life to consume the proceeds. You can't sell your kids, and any productivity they have after you die is worthless to you.
It's useful to identify other tipping points like when this correlation begins to impact subgroups in order to evaluate Simpson paradox effects. For example, France is highly correlated, but the Congo not-so-much because France is rich and the Congo is not. In general, there should be an average to the age of human procreation where this correlation began to take-effect. If we drop below the population level of that age then the correlation may reverse. That's one way correlations describe events - lots of smokers = lots of lung cancer; fewer people smoke, and the correlation is still there, but now other causes of lung cancer begin to correlate in the same strength.
I wonder do the very bottom in intelligence more often fail to have offspring and if true is it relevant.
Interestingly the wealthier at level of schooling have more children. School gets in the way of having children and children get in the way of schooling.https://un-thought.blogspot...
There is one policy implication, make schools more parent and child friendly.
It seems to be correlated strongly with societal (not individual) wealth, and mediated by norms transmitted via mass media.
White American fertility (as measured by the ratio of children aged 0-5 to women aged 20-44) declined by 26% from 1870 to 1920. During that same period, black American fertility declined 39%.
Strange, ehh?
I don't understand Robin's comment that children are not a good investment.
Investments like bonds, stocks, real estate, and other things depend on society allowing wealth to be stored and transferred in such vehicles. There is a systematic risk that a company will be taken over by the state, or a political revolt may declare your class not worthy of its stored wealth. But a child will still have the ability to think for itself and provide for its family despite a changing political situation. Even crypto smart-contracts have been reverted when society didn't want the wealth to go to a certain party (think the original Ethereum DAO).
I think Robin Hanson is thinking about much longer time scales. I assume that is his default at least since he wrotehttps://www.overcomingbias....
actually i might just be wrong
This is incorrect. Large numbers of children are still used as retirement investment for people living in exceptionally poor countries today. For most of subsistence history, past the age of six or seven, kids also work & worked incredible hours. After a short period of growth they are effectively free child labor if you work in a field, in addition to all the free care you hope for as a 60 year old who can no longer work because you've performed dangerous labor your entire life.
Also make sure you remember that many such people have virtually no access to actual investment vehicles, or that really any "safe" method of investing weren't even invented yet while they were alive.
Regression to the mean and the complexity of intelligence genetics suggests we won't "breed for stupid".
Especially since if we were going to, we'd presumably never have gotten where we are now.
The Flynn Effect alone suggests otherwise; IQ continually rises over time, these past decades (for reasons nobody's quite sure of), even while "smart people have fewer kids" has been happening.
(But only certain kinds of smart people; it's culture, not intelligence.
I know a lot of VERY smart Catholics who have a LOT of kids; religious and unintelligent aren't the same.)