From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Sat Aug 20 18:12:32 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Sat Aug 20 18:12:31 1994 Return-Path: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Received: from taweret.colorado.edu (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id SAA03666 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 1994 18:12:31 -0600 Received: (from behan@localhost) by taweret.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/UnixOps) id SAA14056; Sat, 20 Aug 1994 18:11:48 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 18:11:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela Sender: Behan Pamela Reply-To: Behan Pamela Subject: Re: fertility/pop. growth To: PPN List In-Reply-To: <9407220957.ZM21292@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I've been traveling, etc., for the past several weeks. Since no one else has answered Joe's message from 7/22, I will. I do encourage others to jump in, however - this isn't a private conversation! Joe wrote: I suggest that there may be other statistical relationships (cultural, religious, geographical) which are just as potent in determining fertility. This may not be a relationship with a single-modal cause (income). (Then again, I may be wrong. Admittedly, I'm not a demographer.) My response: I don't follow your reasoning, Joe. If a general correlation exists between income and fertility, how can it be explained by cultural, religious or geographical effects on fertility? If these were the dominant determinants, the relationship between income and fertility would not hold true across cultural groups, religious groups, and geographical regions. The only logical explanation for a general correlation is either that fertility determines income, or that income determines fertility (directly or indirectly). This correlation could certainly be affected (exaggerated, partially neutralized, neutralized or occasionally reversed) by other factors - such as culture, religion or geography - but cannot logically be explained by them. Joe wrote: > My point is, in the rush to explain every ill in > the world as caused by a lack of money, we > threaten to run roughshod over other, more sub- > tle, causes. The "Ugly American" syndrome. > > Viewing a higher-than-acceptable rate of birth > (whatever that is) as solely income-linked can > make those who try to reduce these birth rates > ignore other causative factors -- such as cul- > ture. My response: What did I say to make you think I was arguing that fertility is SOLELY determined by income? Of course it's multi-causal! (Even culture and economics are intertwined - for instance, you can't develop a predominantly agricultural state into a modern industrialized country without producing changes in traditional values as well.) A general correlation between income and fertility, however, has lots of implications worth looking at and generally ignored - such as the ones I suggested a few weeks ago: that we're not going to solve the "population problem" without improving the prosperity of and social equity within the Third World, improving the opportunities/education/status of women world-wide, and acknowledging that these changes are not only in the interests of the Third World, and therefore not only "their" problem. (To the extent that the First World desires a comfortable and peaceful future, it is "our" problem, not something we dabble with out of charity or benevolence.) Joe also raises the question of an "objective" Muslim view of women's status. I would argue that we must differentiate between cultural facts with real consequences, such as those that Joe is raising here, and measures of material independence for women, such as education and employment. Perhaps we don't yet have the right words for differentiating these two measures of "status." It is quite true that cultural and religious practices can keep women from being educated, or from using their education to obtain employment and financial independence from husbands and families. It is also true that, where women's opportunities increase, fertility decreases. And it is fertility we are trying to explain. The connection between income and fertility exists in Muslim cultures as it does elsewhere - apparently because of the better education and opportunities for upper-class Muslim women. (That is, a more "liberal" application of cultural and religious strictures by upper-class, educated Muslim men.) Lastly, Joe answers my question: > > I repeat, what are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, > > and how would the above considerations affect them? with the observation that the usual U.S. prescription for reducing fertility is abortion, contraception, social stigma, etc. Very true. The usual Western thinking goes something like this: 1) Overpopulation is a problem, as is too many children for poor families. 2) Provide the means to prevent too many births, without having to do without sex, and the poor will have less children. 3) If they're too ignorant to see the problem, educate them. 4) If they're too stubborn to change, provide incentives. However, the connection between poverty and the need for children (fertility and income) suggests that: 1) Overpopulation isn't a problem for poor people - survival is. Too many children also aren't a problem for poor people - too few children are. 2) Contraception and abortion won't be used where real self-interest requires large families to survive and thrive. 3) Educate people into real new opportunities, not just new values or the use of birth control, if you want your program to make a real difference in fertility rates. 4) Your "incentives" can either take advantage of momentary desperation, provoking long-term regret and distrust (as with India's program of cash for vasectomies), or help people build more secure lives, in which case they won't need so many children. Well, enough from me! Does anyone out there have a different opinion, or a different topic they'd like to raise? PPN can handle several at once - or, if we're boring you, you can say so and change the subject.... Pamela Behan Univ. of Colorado - Boulder From WILLIAM@server.sasw.ncsu.edu Sat Aug 20 18:57:48 MDT 1994 >From WILLIAM@server.sasw.ncsu.edu Sat Aug 20 18:57:47 1994 Return-Path: WILLIAM@server.sasw.ncsu.edu Received: from charon.cc.ncsu.edu (charon.cc.ncsu.edu [152.1.10.14]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id SAA03906 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 1994 18:57:46 -0600 From: WILLIAM@server.sasw.ncsu.edu Received: from subspace.cc.ncsu.edu by charon.cc.ncsu.edu (5.65b/SYSTEMS Dec 28 15:30:00 EDT 1992) id AA01086; Sat, 20 Aug 94 20:57:45 -0400 Posted-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 20:56:41 EST Received: From CHAOS/SUBSPACE-WORKQUEUE by subspace.cc.ncsu.edu via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.940820205840.416; 20 Aug 94 20:58:38 +0500 Message-Id: To: ppn@csf.colorado.edu Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 20:56:41 EST Subject: change of address X-Pmrqc: 1 Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.1 (R1) I am moving and would like to stay on PPN. My new address is DANAHER@WCU.EDU If this is not the right place to send this address change, could someone tell me the correct address or pass this on to the head address-changer. Thanks, Bill Danaher. From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Sat Aug 20 21:52:07 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Sat Aug 20 21:52:02 1994 Return-Path: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Received: from re.colorado.edu (re.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.10]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id VAA05018 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 1994 21:52:02 -0600 Received: (from behan@localhost) by re.colorado.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9/UnixOps) id VAA12686; Sat, 20 Aug 1994 21:51:56 -0600 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 21:51:54 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela Sender: Behan Pamela Reply-To: Behan Pamela Subject: Addendum To: PPN List Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Having just sent the above message, I of course realized that there is a third logical explanation for a general correlation - a third variable determining the other two. However, a correlation between fertility and income that holds true across cultures and religions cannot be caused by either culture or religion. The only variables I can think of which could create this effect are 1) education, and 2) parents' social class - whether determined by wealth or income. More education results in higher income and lower fertility, in general. Being born into a higher social class would have the same effects, I think, partly because of an increased probability of being well-educated, but also because of a lower probability of ending up poor, and a higher probability of having other opportunities in your life that a large family adds nothing to. Where does this leave us? Pamela Behan From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Mon Aug 22 20:18:19 MDT 1994 >From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Mon Aug 22 20:18:17 1994 Return-Path: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Received: from sgigate.sgi.com (sgigate.SGI.COM [192.82.208.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id UAA05183 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 1994 20:18:13 -0600 Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay.sgi.com [192.26.51.36]) by sgigate.sgi.com (940519.SGI.8.6.9/8.6.4) with SMTP id TAA29236; Mon, 22 Aug 1994 19:18:09 -0700 Received: from towel.wpd.sgi.com by relay.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @sgigate.sgi.com:behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU id AA17776; Mon, 22 Aug 94 19:18:02 -0700 Received: by towel.wpd.sgi.com (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) for @relay.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA23769; Mon, 22 Aug 94 19:18:01 -0700 From: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Message-Id: <9408221918.ZM23767@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 19:18:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: Behan Pamela "Re: fertility/pop. growth" (Aug 20, 18:14) References: Mabell: 415.390.4347 Ddial Xface: FFFF_FFFF_FFFF_FFFF(modulo zed) 64 bits o' black Personal_Life: Virtually Virtuous Mime.Audio: MmmwwoooweeeeEEEoooweeeeeOOOO [makes you feel like you're RIGHT there!] Pabell: 004 000 008dot005 005 009dot008 007 007 000(sub9) Ohhnoooo: It's not poetry, it's Boot PROM code! Oops: Iobject!Iobject! Geek_Alert: I once spoke to Kibo (over e-mail!) X-Mailer: Z-Mail-SGI (3.0S.1026 26oct93 MediaMail) To: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU, Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: fertility/pop. growth Cc: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Hi Pam-- First of all: is culture determined by income? To say "yes" is (to me) to define a dangerously-narrow deterministic view of the world. To say "no" is to admit the spiritual and intellectual neurasthenia of the "income as prime determinant of fertility" argument. On Aug 20, 18:14, Behan Pamela wrote: > Subject: Re: fertility/pop. growth > Joe wrote: > > I suggest that there may be other statistical relationships > (cultural, religious, geographical) which are just as potent in > determining fertility. This may not be a relationship with a single-modal > cause (income). (Then again, I may be wrong. Admittedly, I'm not a > demographer.) > > > My response: > > I don't follow your reasoning, Joe. If a general correlation > exists between income and fertility, how can it be explained by cultural, > religious or geographical effects on fertility? Through multicausality. > ...If these were the > dominant determinants, the relationship between income and fertility > would not hold true across cultural groups, religious groups, and > geographical regions. I guess maybe I'm talking about "simultaneous correlations"--(or maybe I'm just arguing myself down a logical cul de sac!)--if such a thing exists. But is there no "general correlation" between culture and fertility? Religious belief and fertility? Is there only general correlation between income and fertility? Let me give you an (okay, apochryphal) example of what I mean: when the Lakota Sioux roamed the Upper Midwestern Plains, they were, by white standards, "low-income." Yet they had achieved population stasis, and were self-sufficient. Why? Because they had a culturally and spiritually coherent Way. Roughly 5 years after Little Big Horn and the death of Crazy Horse, these same Sioux were still "low-income." Their fertility had basically dropped to nil. Following the American pattern of "throw money at the problem," for the next 100 years the Bureau of Indian Affairs (imperfectly) subsidized Lakota incomes by giving them White-Man's homes and appliances. Yet the Sioux persisted in their newly-adopted Way of self-genocide. Why didn't income-subsidization work? Because money cannot replace a spiritual belief-system. That's the message of, for instance, Koyaanasqatsi and the Hopi Way: materialism is no substitute for spiritual life. At best they achieve an uneasy misalliance; but shaman, priest, and guru alike warn us they are antipodal and discongruent. My point is not to proselytize, but rather that one must take this truth into account: income in and of itself is no answer. In the low_poverty = high_fertility paradigm, post hoc non est propter hoc. > > The only logical explanation for a general correlation is either > that fertility determines income, or that income determines fertility > (directly or indirectly). This correlation could certainly be affected > (exaggerated, partially neutralized, neutralized or occasionally reversed) > by other factors - such as culture, religion or geography - but cannot > logically be explained by them. > What makes the correlation between income and fertility "general," and the correlation between fertility and culture, religion, or geography subsidiary? Wouldn't the increased fertility among Catholic or Mormon families more logically be explained by a religious belief in the unit/family, coupled with a lack of belief in birth control (especially Catholics)--rather than being income-related? > > Joe wrote: > > > My point is, in the rush to explain every ill in > > the world as caused by a lack of money, we > > threaten to run roughshod over other, more sub- > > tle, causes. The "Ugly American" syndrome. > > > > Viewing a higher-than-acceptable rate of birth > > (whatever that is) as solely income-linked can > > make those who try to reduce these birth rates > > ignore other causative factors -- such as cul- > > ture. > > > > My response: > > What did I say to make you think I was arguing that fertility is > SOLELY determined by income? Of course it's multi-causal! (Even culture > and economics are intertwined - for instance, you can't develop a > predominantly agricultural state into a modern industrialized country > without producing changes in traditional values as well.) > > A general correlation between income and fertility, however, has > lots of implications worth looking at and generally ignored - such as the > ones I suggested a few weeks ago: that we're not going to solve the > "population problem" without improving the prosperity of and social equity > within the Third World, improving the opportunities/education/status of > women world-wide, I submit that the opportunities/status/education of women in post-Khomeini Iran are determined just as much by cultural and religious factors, as they are by economic factors. Khomeini's revolution, after all, was a rejection of First World economic affectations. THEY DON'T WANT OUR LIFE-STYLE! And what, precisely, is meant by "education"? The narrow western scholasticism embraced by liberalism? > ...and acknowledging that these changes are not only in the > interests of the Third World, and therefore not only "their" problem. What is the "population problem"? Is it in any way analogous to the theory of terminal petroleum resources proposed by social scientists of the 70s? And just as bankrupt? > (To the extent that the First World desires a comfortable and peaceful > future, it is "our" problem, not something we dabble with out of charity or > benevolence.) Right now, the United Nations' Conference on Population that's meeting in Cairo, Egypt, is being protested by both Pope Paul and third-world Muslim fundamentalist leaders as being religiously and culturally hegemonistic. Neither representatives support the First World aims of Population Control. Will increasing their incomes change their minds? We Americans are notoriously plutocentric; we view everything through a lens of dollar bills. The religious and cultural hegemonism described above will not be solved by the lubricious application of foreign aid. > > > > Joe also raises the question of an "objective" Muslim view of > women's status. I would argue that we must differentiate between cultural > facts with real consequences, such as those that Joe is raising here, and > measures of material independence for women, such as education and > employment. Perhaps we don't yet have the right words for differentiating > these two measures of "status." Good semantic point. But my point is, these "cultural facts" are not obviated by "material independence." A woman can be "materially independent" and still be "culturally bound"--through her own choice. That is the fact that is not being addressed: that women *chose* to have large families because of culturation, or religious belief, not merely low economic status. The message I feel I'm receiving is that these women would not choose to have large families "if only they were materially independent." The Muslim women whose children attend the private school down the street from us wear chadar and don't want a Western education, nor do they want their children to have one. Nor do they want to be employed. They want a large family with a lot of little orthodox Muslim kids; I know this because, at swimming lessons, they tell me so. What is to be done with them? > > It is quite true that cultural and religious practices can keep > women from being educated, or from using their education to obtain > employment and financial independence from husbands and families. It is > also true that, where women's opportunities increase, fertility decreases. > And it is fertility we are trying to explain. High fertility rates are not merely being "explicated" here. Income is being posited both as the general cause ("general correlation") of fertility and a prognosticatory tool to be used to reduce "problem" fertility. And I still don't buy it. I have the gut feeling (based on personal experience only, so I'll admit it's hardly empirical) that there are other causes just as potent as income, which are not being factored into the equation. Income is A cause; not THE cause. And beware of the too-easy translation of cause into solution. > > The connection between income and fertility exists in Muslim > cultures as it does elsewhere - apparently because of the better education > and opportunities for upper-class Muslim women. (That is, a more "liberal" > application of cultural and religious strictures by upper-class, educated > Muslim men.) Is a general correlation between income and liberalism being proposed? (Strike that.) > > > Lastly, Joe answers my question: > > > > > I repeat, what are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, > > > and how would the above considerations affect them? > > with the observation that the usual U.S. prescription for reducing > fertility is abortion, contraception, social stigma, etc. Very true. > The usual Western thinking goes something like this: > > 1) Overpopulation is a problem, as is too many children for poor > families. > > 2) Provide the means to prevent too many births, without having to > do without sex, and the poor will have less children. > > 3) If they're too ignorant to see the problem, educate them. > > 4) If they're too stubborn to change, provide incentives. > > > However, the connection between poverty and the need for children > (fertility and income) suggests that: > > 1) Overpopulation isn't a problem for poor people - survival is. > Too many children also aren't a problem for poor people - too few children > are. > > 2) Contraception and abortion won't be used where real self-interest > requires large families to survive and thrive. > > 3) Educate people into real new opportunities, not just new values > or the use of birth control, if you want your program to make a real > difference in fertility rates. > > 4) Your "incentives" can either take advantage of momentary > desperation, provoking long-term regret and distrust (as with India's > program of cash for vasectomies), or help people build more secure lives, > in which case they won't need so many children. I think we must be arguing from immiscible first principles, Pam. I believe that fertility decisions can just as well be cultural, religious, or geographical, which are much more resistant to the historically-simplistic American solution of throwing money at the problem. On the other hand, I'll stipulate your quantitative analysis and statistical knowledge is probably orders of magnitude more accurate than mine. And I'll stipulate that "helping people build more secure lives" is a viable good start. On Aug 20, 21:52, Behan Pamela wrote: > Subject: Addendum > > Having just sent the above message, I of course realized that > there is a third logical explanation for a general correlation - a third > variable determining the other two. However, a correlation between > fertility and income that holds true across cultures and religions cannot > be caused by either culture or religion. True: but what about the negative fertility/income correlation exhibited by, for example, Amerindians under the BIA? > > The only variables I can think of which could create this effect > are 1) education, and 2) parents' social class - whether determined by > wealth or income. More education results in higher income and lower > fertility, in general. Being born into a higher social class would have > the same effects, I think, partly because of an increased probability of > being well-educated, but also because of a lower probability of ending up > poor, and a higher probability of having other opportunities in your life > that a large family adds nothing to. Personal bias alert, Pam: "...a large family adds nothing..."? Personally, having experienced both, I would rather be poor with a large number of siblings than rich and alone (within limits, of course). Since this is just a personal opinion though, yours is certainly as valid as mine, and mine yours. > > Where does this leave us? It leaves us working with individuals on an individual level, accomodating their nexus of cultural, religious, geographic AND income-related causes. Thanks for making my brain work. --Joe > > Pamela Behan <>-- End of excerpt from Behan Pamela -- Joe "Joe" Heinrich Tales of Silicon Valley Flatland: joeh@sgi.com Rotary dial: 415.390.4347 DTMF:SameAsAbove BLM Locator:Building8Lower SnailMail:MS/535, 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mt. View, CA 94043 Kill all smileys :>