so one could argue it's because lower classes survived less. But I mean, not sure it changes much about the argument.
I also think the data is generally noisy (there could have been unrecorded births for example and that would affect lower classes more presumably). But that's what we have & the claim is extraordinary enough that it needs some striking pattern imo to hold water.
Thanks for posting this, I was waiting for this particular critique, which is so obvious I'm not sure Robin Hanson even came up with this hypothesis. To me, the theoretical construct is not solid (in evolutionary and historical terms), so backing it up with data, as Hanania did, doesn't make it any more plausible. At least it showed how constructive discourse works on Substack.
I suspect the low fertility in most of the world can be explained by just two factors or adaptations. 1. Status seeking - striving for status is an human universal, and kids are more an impediment than a promoter of status. 2. Opportunity cost - although this is an economic term, I think, it’s the one that best describes, what is actually an adaptation, an ecological rationality where organisms have weighted the costs of one behavior over the other. There are significant opportunity costs of having (many) children today. I like to think that opportunity costs have to be zero or even negative (or do I mean positive?) in order to change today’s fertility rate. Evolved emotions like lust, sex drive, love, parental love and falling in love just aren’t strong enough in and of themselves.
I'm back from my busy trip, so can finally respond.
I accept that data on elite fertility isn't clear before a few centuries ago. I've been accepting historian reports of common low elite fertility, but you can plausibly disagree: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/ancient-fertility-quotes
I note that you question only the “king and queen” theory, not my selection neglect theory, which is also trying to explain lower elite fertility. That theory only suggests low fertility for those who are elite primarily via owning property, not via a prestigious family name.
I agree that the selection pressures of kings and queens was weak recently in large polities, when they ruled over millions, but long ago each pair may have ruled over only a few hundred people, making for a much larger % effect over a much longer time period.
Note that I did not say that such behaviors are encoded in DNA; more plausibly they are encoded in culture.
" I did not say such behaviors are encoded in DNA; more plausibly they are encoded in culture."
ok so couple of points here.
1) How does selection work here if not selecting genes? Does it favour whole cultures where elites have lower number of kids? As in these cultures are more successful? If so, I'd say Western culture is pretty successful yet it seems until Industrial Revolution elites had more, not less kids (as far as we can tell). Also, this seems to advantage individuals (specifically the elites that reproduce less), not entire cultures, so I do not really see how non-genetic selection could act here.
2) Maybe you do not require any selection, maybe you just mean there is a cultural norm that favours land-owning people having less kids that got propagated. & has now stayed with us due to inertia? Yet we clearly see violations of this norm in the past.
3) if you mean 2), how is 2) not simply a subset of my broader theory: "In short, I think humans in general (not just elites), try to maximise status and resources for themselves and their offspring. They also dislike discomfort - and raising kids is massively taxing. Depending on the specific era, culture & customs, adding these variables together will result in different optimal numbers of children for different social classes. In particular, one can easily explain the current lower number of kids among middle classes with this very simple “theory”: kids cost money, they are hard to raise, they do not offer a massive status benefit in a non-religious world & there is a high opportunity cost in terms of both career (status) & resources when it comes to middle class people having kids, specifically" ? According to *my* theory, we would expect land-owning people to limit fertility when needed in order to preserve land (subject to other cultural constraints too- e.g. the need to preserve a dynasty).
This is good. Isn’t “net fertility” in the first future though the number of surviving children, not number of births?
yeah, it is. The other ones are births.
so one could argue it's because lower classes survived less. But I mean, not sure it changes much about the argument.
I also think the data is generally noisy (there could have been unrecorded births for example and that would affect lower classes more presumably). But that's what we have & the claim is extraordinary enough that it needs some striking pattern imo to hold water.
Thanks for posting this, I was waiting for this particular critique, which is so obvious I'm not sure Robin Hanson even came up with this hypothesis. To me, the theoretical construct is not solid (in evolutionary and historical terms), so backing it up with data, as Hanania did, doesn't make it any more plausible. At least it showed how constructive discourse works on Substack.
thank you!
I suspect the low fertility in most of the world can be explained by just two factors or adaptations. 1. Status seeking - striving for status is an human universal, and kids are more an impediment than a promoter of status. 2. Opportunity cost - although this is an economic term, I think, it’s the one that best describes, what is actually an adaptation, an ecological rationality where organisms have weighted the costs of one behavior over the other. There are significant opportunity costs of having (many) children today. I like to think that opportunity costs have to be zero or even negative (or do I mean positive?) in order to change today’s fertility rate. Evolved emotions like lust, sex drive, love, parental love and falling in love just aren’t strong enough in and of themselves.
Yeah that's what I was getting at in the intro too...
I'm back from my busy trip, so can finally respond.
I accept that data on elite fertility isn't clear before a few centuries ago. I've been accepting historian reports of common low elite fertility, but you can plausibly disagree: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/ancient-fertility-quotes
I note that you question only the “king and queen” theory, not my selection neglect theory, which is also trying to explain lower elite fertility. That theory only suggests low fertility for those who are elite primarily via owning property, not via a prestigious family name.
I agree that the selection pressures of kings and queens was weak recently in large polities, when they ruled over millions, but long ago each pair may have ruled over only a few hundred people, making for a much larger % effect over a much longer time period.
Note that I did not say that such behaviors are encoded in DNA; more plausibly they are encoded in culture.
" I did not say such behaviors are encoded in DNA; more plausibly they are encoded in culture."
ok so couple of points here.
1) How does selection work here if not selecting genes? Does it favour whole cultures where elites have lower number of kids? As in these cultures are more successful? If so, I'd say Western culture is pretty successful yet it seems until Industrial Revolution elites had more, not less kids (as far as we can tell). Also, this seems to advantage individuals (specifically the elites that reproduce less), not entire cultures, so I do not really see how non-genetic selection could act here.
2) Maybe you do not require any selection, maybe you just mean there is a cultural norm that favours land-owning people having less kids that got propagated. & has now stayed with us due to inertia? Yet we clearly see violations of this norm in the past.
3) if you mean 2), how is 2) not simply a subset of my broader theory: "In short, I think humans in general (not just elites), try to maximise status and resources for themselves and their offspring. They also dislike discomfort - and raising kids is massively taxing. Depending on the specific era, culture & customs, adding these variables together will result in different optimal numbers of children for different social classes. In particular, one can easily explain the current lower number of kids among middle classes with this very simple “theory”: kids cost money, they are hard to raise, they do not offer a massive status benefit in a non-religious world & there is a high opportunity cost in terms of both career (status) & resources when it comes to middle class people having kids, specifically" ? According to *my* theory, we would expect land-owning people to limit fertility when needed in order to preserve land (subject to other cultural constraints too- e.g. the need to preserve a dynasty).