Dan M wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 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). > I tend to think that is a pretty simple manifestation of the Demographic Transition. Children are a net asset in poorer countries (they can be put to work, can support you in old age, etc.). In richer economies, children are a luxury good that cost you a lot and deliver no economic return, hence you will tend to have fewer of them.
Regards, -- Kevin B. O'Brien TANSTAAFL [email protected] Linux User #333216 "The truth that survives is simply the lie that is pleasantest to believe." - H.L. Mencken _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
