>From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Fri Jul 22 10:57:15 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 KAA07893 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 10:57:07 -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 JAA22918; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:57:06 -0700 Received: from towel.wpd.sgi.com by relay.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @sgigate.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA01022; Fri, 22 Jul 94 09:57:04 -0700 Received: by towel.wpd.sgi.com (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) for @relay.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA21294; Fri, 22 Jul 94 09:57:02 -0700 From: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Message-Id: <9407220957.ZM21292@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:57:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: Behan Pamela "re: fertility/pop. growth" (Jul 20, 16:54) 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: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: fertility/pop. growth Cc: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 On Jul 20, 16:54, Behan Pamela wrote: > Subject: re: fertility/pop. growth > > Joe Heinrich raises the question of whether an alternative > explanation exists for the statistical relationship between fertility and > income, besides income determining fertility. He suggests that culture > might present such an explanation, for instance, for Eskimo, Irish, or > Cherokee families. Pamela: That's not exactly what I'm suggesting. I sug- gest that there may be other statistical rela- tionships (cultural, religious, geographical) which are just as potent in determining fertil- ity. This may not be a relationship with a single-modal cause (income). (Then again, I may be wrong. Admittedly, I'm not a demographer.) > > If all we had was fertility data for the U.S., Joe's point would be > hard to refute, although it doesn't explain the higher fertility of lower > income white women. Ethnic minority status in the U.S. is certainly > associated with lower income. I agree: associative, but not proven to be causal. > > However, as I understand it, lower income is associated with > higher fertility internationally - in diverse cultures, heterogenous and > homogenous societies, cross-nationally, etc. Once again: associative, but not causal. > ...Some dynamic is operating > here which goes beyond culture; Agreed. But doesn't obviate culture or religion as dynamics. I.e., do Catholics have large fami- lies for cultural or economic reasons? Mormons have larger-than-average families; is this an economic or a culteral artifact? > ...our readings this spring suggested that > poorer people need more children than wealthier people, for a number of > reasons. These include help with labor intensive work such as farming, > assurance that at least one child will survive to provide security for the > parents in old age, status for the mother/father in societies where that > is a poor woman/man's only source of status, having a large family network > to use in finding work or getting help in bad times, having more family > members to contribute to the pooled family income, etc. These examples seem to be as much a component of culture as they are of economic status (income). o The decision to farm is as cultural as it is economic o Providing security is most likely economic o Status for mother/father is as cultural as it is economic o Having a large family...in bad times ("bad" undefined) is as cultural as it is economic o Helping with pooled income is obviously economic My point is, in the rush to explain every ill in the world as caused by a lack of money, we threaten to run roughshod over other, more sub- tle, causes. The "Ugly American" syndrome. Viewing a higher-than-acceptable rate of birth (whatever that is) as solely income-linked can make those who try to reduce these birth rates ignore other causative factors -- such as cul- ture. > > Thus, an inverse relation between income and fertility is not so > easy to dismiss, or to explain away. I'm not saying there's no correlation; just that there are other correlations (cultural, reli- gious) that cannot be dismissed just because they do not span evenly across the entire database. > > > Joe also asks for a definition of "higher status" for women, > although I specifically mentioned higher education and relative autonomy > in that context. Women's education is highly correlated (inversely) with > fertility, as is women's employment. > > There are many ways to interpret and argue such a correlation, of > course - I don't know how many PPN subscribers really want to pursue > every alternative possibility of such facts. The Muslim husband's view > of his wife's status (subjective) isn't at issue here; I'm discussing > objective criteria related to women's economic and social independence. I think we can safely objectify this as the Muslim view of women. Do western women of "economic and social independence" enjoy upper status in the Muslim world? They don't seem to. The correlation instead seems to be inverse. Those who stay home and raise families, remaining financially *dependent* upon their male partner, have higher social status in the Muslim world. (Okay, Eastern Muslim). Is the prime distinction between the western and Muslim woman economic or cultural? Cultural. > A third question raised by Joe is whether we can do anything > useful with the idea that the First World has a stake in the prosperity > and social equity of the Third World. I would argue that the > implications of this notion are not Victorian at all (nor do they include > "throwing money at them"). > > They suggest, instead, that the First World is not indulging in > charity work when it takes an interest in Third World conditions - it is > looking out for its own future. Furthermore, when the First World > indulges in exploitive economic or political behavior towards the Third > World, it is stabbing itself in the foot (so to speak). For argument's sake let's say that, as you pro- pose, rates of higher fertility *are* primarily income-linked. Besides throwing money at the problem, what solutions would you suggest? > > > > > I repeat, what are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, > and how would the above considerations affect them? First of all, what are the reasons for reducing fertility? Do these reasons translate meaning- fully into something acceptible to this target population? Or that the population even comprehends? Second, the above prescriptions depend upon who "our" is. In the US, I'd say the usual prescriptions are: o Abortion o birth control o abstinence o social stigma for a start. Which of these prescriptions would be palatable to Third World inhabitants? Oh well. There's always the Chinese solution. --Joe -- Joe "Joe" Heinrich starting_point 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 :>