2 responses so far ↓

• 1 chiraven // Apr 29, 2007 at 8:25 pm

  Regina, I can’t help but comment, though, about the correlation between the trend you point out and the trend toward smaller family sizes. We’re reaching the point where, except in certain sub-cultures, our population is barely self-sustaining in some areas. If we were to take a Darwinian view of these trends, we might view them as having a negative survival value in the long term. People who disregard the public morals about sex are just not breeding as fast as people who DO follow the public morals. Sad, but true I’m afraid.

• 2 WorseThanNormal // May 1, 2007 at 11:42 am

  Chiraven,

  Smaller families are not correlated to a loss of “public morals.” Its a function of economic and educational status (I hate to sound classist, but this has been proven from culture to culture). Besides, what do we have to be worried about? Humanity is quickly over-populating the planet. In 2000 the estimate was that we would, on average, add 6 million people (the city of Bangkok, essentially) to the skin of this planet every 6 months until 2050. That’s not 6 million people being born every 6 months. That’s 6 million more people will be born each 6 months than people die. We are, as a species, far from the brink of extinction. Ah, but you’re not worried about the species, you’re worried about your “culture” and you make the assumption that every species/culture tha comes into existence deserves to survive. That’s not very Darwinian of you. Besides, the large size of the middle class in European cultures (including the U.S., Canada, and Australia) is due to The Plauge. The large die off of people caused a shortage of labor allowing the serfs to demand higher wages and there were more resources to go around. Anyway, fuedelism is the natural order of human society and todays birthrates reflect a shift back in that direction.