> -----Original Message----- > From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On > Behalf Of Olin Elliott > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:05 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: What is wealth? > > Wealth can be defined in evolutionary terms. Whatever enhances your > health, your security, your status or your power in the group is wealth. > In other words -- in a state of nature -- anything the possession of which > improves your reproductive fitness. That is the ultimate basis of the > concept of wealth, and all our elaborations and abstractions don't change > that much.
What about the facts, would they change things much? :-) I think there is some viability in the sociobiological argument that wealth increases the attractiveness of men as mates. But, if you look at "the selfish gene" as an embodiment of sociobiology, you see that wealth has had a paradoxical effect. Look at the wealthiest countries in the world. With the exception of the US, they have fertility rates below replacement, some (like Japan, Germany and Italy) far below replacement. The countries with high fertility rates tend to be poorer. Thus, wealth is anti-correlated with the probability a person's gene marker will be seen in a given member of the Nth generation after one's own (which is a standard measure of sociobiological fitness). Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
