Is Fertility After the Demographic Transition Maladaptive? Rosemary L. Hopcroft. Journal of Biosocial Science, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932018000032
Summary: Fitness is always relative to the fitness of others in the group or breeding population. Even in very low-fertility societies, individual fitness as measured by the share of genes in subsequent generations may still be maximized. Further, sexual selection theory from evolutionary biology suggests that the relationship between status and fertility will differ for males and females. For this reason it is important to examine the relationship between status and fertility separately for males and females–something few demographic studies of fertility do. When male fertility is measured separately, high-status men (as measured by their wealth and personal income) have higher fertility than low-status men, even in very low-fertility societies, so individual males appear to be maximizing their fitness within the constraints posed by a modern society. Thus male fertility cannot be considered maladaptive. When female fertility is measured separately, in both very high- and very low-fertility societies, there is not much variance across women of different statuses in completed fertility. Only in societies currently changing rapidly (with falling fertility rates) is somewhat high variance across women of different statuses in completed fertility found. What is seen across all phases of the demographic transition appears to be a continuation of two somewhat different evolved human reproductive strategies–one male, one female–in changing social and material contexts. Whether contemporary female fertility is maladaptive remains an open question.
Check also Evolution and Human Reproduction. Martin Fieder and Susanne Huber. In Oxford Handbook of Evolution, Biology, and Society, edited by Rosemary L. Hopcroft. Mar 2018. http://www.bipartisanalliance.com/2018/03/association-between-status-and.html
And: Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels. Daniel PĂ©russe. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 16, Issue 2, June 1993 , pp. 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00029939
No comments:
Post a Comment