decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
You can thank several large die-offs for that. | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You can thank several large die-offs for that.
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 02:19 PM EDT
That was what this was thought to be. I've seen an interesting article that
implies otherwise!

In hunter-gatherer societies, males are females are more or less socially equal.
Birth rates are low. In "civilised" societies, the same is true.

As we shifted from hunter-gatherer to agrarian, social inequalities grew, and
females became more and more an underclass and were treated as property. Birth
rates rose - there seems to be a strong correlation between female abuse,
valuing sons above daughters, and a high birth rate. Not that surprising
really.

What's caused the change? TV SOAPS!!! In pushing the agenda of female
emancipation and equality, it has also resulted in a massive drop in birth
rates. The drop in birth rates seems to have a very close correlation to the
spread of TV infrastructure.

Which is why sub-Saharan Africa currently is resistant to dropping birth rates
(war keeps destroying the infrastructure) and people studying this apparently
expect a sharp drop as it spreads.

It does all make a weird sense ... I know here in the UK we have several birth
spikes over the last few decades - all linked to a tv outage of one sort or
another (the rolling powercuts of 1974, various street-parties where kids were
taken care of and parents had free time, etc etc ...)

Slightly drifting the topic, I was puzzling over where this 2.2 or 1.8 or
whatever "average family size" came from, and it suddenly struck me -
the maths is very simple. Assuming a steady state, divide the number of births
by the number of first time mums, and it will give you an accurate figure for
the eventual average size of those families. Very easy to calculate. Going
through the continents, obviously, the Chinese have driven that number close to
1. I know from stuff I've picked up that the UK figure is about 1.8, and that's
one of the highest figures in Europe! South America is a lot lower than expected
- I think it might well have dropped below the 2.2 for a stable population.

The shocker is India - I gather that figure has dropped to 2.3! The US is also a
shocker in that it's still above 2.2 there.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )