3 ms·

Neither your characterization of the mating behavior of primitive man nor your explanation for low birth rates in affluent societies are consistent with reality

by djur 13y ago

Neither your characterization of the mating behavior of primitive man nor your explanation for low birth rates in affluent societies are consistent with reality. Age of first pregnancy and number of children both tended to be higher in early agricultural societies than hunter-gatherer societies. Finland has a marriage rate above the OECD average[1], which suggests that its low birthrate isn't a result of women being unable to find partners. It's dropped since 1970, but the fertility rate has actually increased since then[2] and is now 1.8, not 1.5. [1]: http://mattbruenig.com/wp-content/uploads/marriagerates.png http://mattbruenig.com/wp-content/uploads/marriagerates.png [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Finland

graycat 13y ago
You are missing the key points of my argument: (1) Your "primitive man" I argued is nonsense because the evidence is very strong that the genes are very much the same (right, I left the argument as an exercise but will give you the solution if you wish -- hint, it's a kind of triangle inequality). (2) You missed my argument about why the women are not happy and not reproducing: Current life, married or not, does not fit with the genes of women. There's just no fit. To see some of this, look again at my scenario in a tribe or village beside a river in Europe or East Asia. Likely could throw in the US before 1492. Hint: Read some D. Tannen -- women are designed to get a huge fraction of their happiness, i.e., emotional security from, essentially, gossip, that is, a lot of conversation with other women. For today, think of cell phones, PInterest, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Well, the gossip situation was much better in that village 10,000 years ago. Indeed, for essentially every aspect of her life, she was surrounded by women of all ages with lessons on child care (done essentially by the village), preparing food, and making clothes. Now, in strong contrast, she is highly isolated and gets, what, Oprah? Bummer. For the birth rate, it doesn't work. Your point about the marriage rate is next to irrelevant. I got my 1.5 in Finland from Wikipedia. The claim was that on average each woman in Finland has just 1.5 children. Rates across nearly all of Europe and Russia are significantly below 2.1 needed, in our modern society, for a stable population. That things were better in early agricultural societies is nice but a bit irrelevant to my argument: I'm comparing a village 10,000 years ago to, say, the last 60 or so years of people of Western European descent and East Asian descent. Beginning to see where the triangle inequality comes from? Hint, the common ancestors were 10,000+ years ago. Soooooo, presto, where women of those two areas are close, they both have to be even closer to their common ancestors 10,000+ years ago. Right: Those women would have loved PInterest and cell phones, right away! > which suggests that its low birthrate isn't a result of women being unable to find partners Okay, but "partners" is not nearly enough to please Mother Nature. The situation is creating weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. One of the reasons is that a woman of 35 just is not, to her husband, someone easy to build a good family with. Why? She's too darned old so that he just doesn't feel about her like Mother Nature intended. For women who wait until age 35 to start a family, Darwin will have the last word.

by djur 13y ago

graycat 13y ago

You are missing the key points of my argument: (1) Your "primitive man" I argued is nonsense because the evidence is very strong that the genes are very much the same (right, I left the argument as an exercise but will give you the solution if you wish -- hint, it's a kind of triangle inequality). (2) You missed my argument about why the women are not happy and not reproducing: Current life, married or not, does not fit with the genes of women. There's just no fit. To see some of this, look again at my scenario in a tribe or village beside a river in Europe or East Asia. Likely could throw in the US before 1492. Hint: Read some D. Tannen -- women are designed to get a huge fraction of their happiness, i.e., emotional security from, essentially, gossip, that is, a lot of conversation with other women. For today, think of cell phones, PInterest, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Well, the gossip situation was much better in that village 10,000 years ago. Indeed, for essentially every aspect of her life, she was surrounded by women of all ages with lessons on child care (done essentially by the village), preparing food, and making clothes. Now, in strong contrast, she is highly isolated and gets, what, Oprah? Bummer. For the birth rate, it doesn't work. Your point about the marriage rate is next to irrelevant. I got my 1.5 in Finland from Wikipedia. The claim was that on average each woman in Finland has just 1.5 children. Rates across nearly all of Europe and Russia are significantly below 2.1 needed, in our modern society, for a stable population. That things were better in early agricultural societies is nice but a bit irrelevant to my argument: I'm comparing a village 10,000 years ago to, say, the last 60 or so years of people of Western European descent and East Asian descent. Beginning to see where the triangle inequality comes from? Hint, the common ancestors were 10,000+ years ago. Soooooo, presto, where women of those two areas are close, they both have to be even closer to their common ancestors 10,000+ years ago. Right: Those women would have loved PInterest and cell phones, right away! > which suggests that its low birthrate isn't a result of women being unable to find partners Okay, but "partners" is not nearly enough to please Mother Nature. The situation is creating weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. One of the reasons is that a woman of 35 just is not, to her husband, someone easy to build a good family with. Why? She's too darned old so that he just doesn't feel about her like Mother Nature intended. For women who wait until age 35 to start a family, Darwin will have the last word.