Why are modern families so small? Could it have something in common with peacock tails? A fascinating essay in the new issue of Science is the basis of my newest column for Wired. And man oh man, are the commenters freaking out. Judge for yourself.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I have to admit that I've always had a soft spot for pareidolia, that phenomenon wherein people see things that aren't there because human brains are wired for pattern recognition. As a child (and even as an adult), I loved lazily looking up at the clouds and envisioning animals, objects, and…
Today's St. Petersburg Times has a letter from Bill Foster. Foster was the outgoing city councilman who wrote a letter to the school board opposing the teaching of modern Evolutionary Biology, or at least, the teaching of modern science without wrapping it in a medieval blanket of Christian…
Those of us who dedicate considerable time and effort to combatting quackery generally do it because we think we're doing good. Certainly, I wouldn't spend so much time nearly every evening blogging the way I do if I didn't think so. It's true that I also enjoy it, but if I were doing this just for…
I had intended to devote this post to Michael Ruse's latest column for HuffPo. It turns out, though, that first we need to consider this earlier column from Ruse.
When I first started writing about evolution and creationism I took a highly accommodationist line. I was perfectly happy to parrot…
Small thing, Ruth Mace is from University college London, not the Imperial college.
The peacock's tail evolved as a genetic change over many generations. Decreases in family size have often happened in less than one generation, so it can't be due to a genetic change. So what's the evolutionary argument here? Past human evolution (mostly before there were cities) gave us brains that are smart enough to see that fewer children may mean more grandchildren, but too stupid to realize that the optimum will never be less than one?
Are the resources saved by having fewer kids really being invested in the kids we do have? Or in goodies for Mom and Dad? (I don't know the answer to this, but it seems a key question.)
This is one of several topics explored on this podcast done by a group of atheist bloggers called The Herd of Heathens.
Personally, I think it's more about cultural evolution than genetic evolution - though, obviously, over time they will merge to varying degrees.
Ford:
>Are the resources saved by having fewer kids really being invested in the kids we do >have? Or in goodies for Mom and Dad? (I don't know the answer to this, but it seems a >key question.)
This is totally anecdotal, but it's certainly true in my family. Each of my grandparents was one of six or seven children, and their parents struggled to feed them all. Two of my grandparents left high school early in order to work and help feed their younger siblings.
Fast forward 100 years. I have only two children, so I can afford to feed them and still have some funds left over. A good chunk of those dollars go to "educational enrichment" -- like music and art lessons. If I had six kids, those dollars would certainly be buying food instead.