>From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Tue Jul 12 12:07:29 1994 Return-Path: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Received: from sgigate.sgi.com (sgigate.SGI.COM [192.82.208.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA19321 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 1994 12:07:28 -0600 Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay.sgi.com [192.26.51.36]) by sgigate.sgi.com (940519.SGI.8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id LAA10704; Tue, 12 Jul 1994 11:07:12 -0700 Received: from towel.wpd.sgi.com by relay.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @sgigate.sgi.com:behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU id AA18623; Tue, 12 Jul 94 11:07:08 -0700 Received: by towel.wpd.sgi.com (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) for @relay.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA07858; Tue, 12 Jul 94 11:07:06 -0700 From: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Message-Id: <9407121107.ZM7856@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 11:07:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: Behan Pamela "fertility/population growth" (Jul 11, 12:50) References: Mabell: 415.390.4347 Ddial Xface: FFFF_FFFF_FFFF_FFFF(modulo zed) 64 bits o' black Personal_Life: Virtually Virtuous Mime.Audio: MmmwwoooweeeeEEEoooweeeeeOOOO [makes you feel like you're RIGHT there!] Pabell: 004 000 008dot005 005 009dot008 007 007 000(sub9) Ohhnoooo: It's not poetry, it's Boot PROM code! Oops: Iobject!Iobject! Geek_Alert: I once spoke to Kibo (over e-mail!) X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.1b.0 21jan94 MediaMail) To: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU, Subject: Re: fertility/population growth Cc: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Pamela: On Jul 11, 12:50, Behan Pamela wrote: > Subject: fertility/population growth > If not, we can begin to consider the implications of such a relation. > For instance, it suggests that nations which desire a lower birth rate > need to improve opportunities for their poorest citizens - or reduce > inequality - in order to reduce fertility. There seems to be something of the _post hoc, propter hoc_ fallacy here. Just because the sequence (poorer citizens have larger families) is true, does not mean the latter is a consequence of the former (poorer citizens have larger families *because* they are poorer). As a control, how large are Eskimo families (I'm asking without knowing the answer)? Irish? Cherokee? There may be something cultural here, that transcends mere economic status. > > It also suggests that the higher status of women typically found in higher > income groups, including higher education and relative autonomy, may need > to be deliberately encouraged & supported in other social classes as a > prerequisite to lower birth rates. "Higher status" from whose point of view? You might be hard-pressed to convince a poor Muslim that his wife has "lower status" than that of a single American working woman making 65K writing ASICs... > > Furthermore, it suggests that "First-World" nations which desire other, > "Third-World" nations to reduce their population growth, have a stake in > the prosperity and social equity of those nations. So, what--we throw money at them? Reject the notion that "third-worlders" view children as economic units--no matter how opaque their culture may appear to us. The next step along this path is the sort of cultural hegemonism which, in the nineteenth century, led to the frenzy of Victorian evangelistic crusades... ("The horror, the horror...") > > What are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, and how would > the above affect them? Here's a couple: o enforced birth control o the Chinese solution > > Pamela Behan >-- End of excerpt from Behan Pamela -- Joe "Joe" Heinrich Almost Online:HTTP://towel.wpd.sgi.com Flatland: joeh@sgi.com Rotary dial: 415.390.4347 DTMF:SameAsAbove BLM Locator:Building8Lower SnailMail:MS/535, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mt. View, CA 94043 Kill all smileys :>