3 ms·

Could a negative correlation between fertility and intelligence be an explanation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedi

• soheil 4y ago
  Idiocracy
• chaorace 4y ago
  It would only have explanatory value if you could prove that "intelligent" people have become relatively less fertile over time, compared to the population as a whole. Of course, historically, we see that the rich and educated upper echelons of society have apparently always struggled with fertility. There's also the nagging issue that even highly stratified societies aren't that stable on evolutionary timescales.
  • Jensson 4y ago
    > Of course, historically, we see that the rich and educated upper echelons of society have apparently always struggled with fertility They still had plenty of kids, and their kids didn't suffer from early deaths nearly as much as among the poor.
  • whyoh 4y ago
    >historically, we see that the rich and educated upper echelons of society have apparently always struggled with fertility Do you have a source for this? I've read that it was the opposite until the 19th century. (Supposedly the source for this claim is "A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World".)
  • jlawson 4y ago
    >Of course, historically, we see that the rich and educated upper echelons of society have apparently always struggled with fertility. This is exactly backwards; in the medieval and early modern era the wealthy had many more surviving kids than the poor. This has been established by birth and marriage records. The reason is because in these eras, physical survival was a challenge, and contraceptives did not exist, so the wealthy were the ones who could afford to keep their kids alive and healthy in large numbers. This is part of why there was so much competition among siblings for the titles and positions of their parents; there was never enough to go around so the life of each person was a constant struggle against the overall flow of downward mobility.
    • chaorace 4y ago
      > in the medieval and early modern era the wealthy had many more surviving kids than the poor Per Figure 2 of Fertility trends by social status by Vergard Skirbekk[1], we see that -- globally -- high social class begins to exert an overall negative pressure pressure on fertility relative to the lower classes as early as the start of the 1700s. So, yes, "Always" was a wrong description on my part, as we do see the opposite relationship during the early premodern and late medieval periods. It would have been more accurate of me to say something like: "historically, we see that the rich and educated upper echelons of society have apparently struggled with fertility for hundreds of years". > contraceptives did not exist Contraceptives did indeed exist. The much fabled Silphium springs to mind. Those of higher social class would certainly have had better access to experienced practitioners and the various abortifacient concoctions which might have currently been in fashion. > physical survival was a challenge [...] so the wealthy were the ones who could afford to keep their kids alive and healthy in large number On the other hand... there were much stronger incentives for agrarian family units to have children. More children meant more labor. More labor meant more land productivity. Agricultural success often went hand-in-hand with copious production of children. [1]: https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol18/5/ https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol18/5/