From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Fri Jul 1 23:43:24 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Fri Jul 1 23:43:22 1994 Return-Path: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id XAA03819 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 23:43:22 -0600 Received: from taweret.Colorado.EDU (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id XAA20624 for ; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 23:43:16 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by taweret.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id XAA10921; Fri, 1 Jul 1994 23:43:15 -0600 Date: Fri, 1 Jul 1994 23:43:14 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela Sender: Behan Pamela Reply-To: Behan Pamela Subject: re: fertility To: PPN List Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Shripad asks for numbers on fertility & income. The latest Statistical Abstract I own (1990) has only one table on this relationship, although this one table shows a strong correlation. (Isn't it interesting that our government gives us numerous tables on race & fertility, but only one on income & fertility?) The table (#93) shows the income of women who have had a child in the last year (1988), and so doesn't reflect all births. It is divided into three categories, by the age of the mother. The most comprehensive column, including ages 18 to 44, ranges (on total births per 1,000 women) from 106.4 for women with a family income of less than $10,000 down to 59.7 for women with a family income of $35,000 or over. 18-29 year old women range from 148.9 (<$10,000) down to 72.2 ($35,000 or over). 30-44 year old women range from 51.6 down to 34.4, and show the only fluctuations back up in total births as income increases. I figure this fluctuation reflects the older professional women, having babies after they're professionally established. I agree that tax advantages don't seem like much to encourage all the expenses and difficulties of parenthood with, but the economists insist it works, and have some figures to back it up! I wonder if there could be some alternative explanation for the correlation of tax advantages with births.... Tom, you do to some extent misunderstand my meaning. Educated /self-reflective was meant as an either-or-both category, not one implying that only educated folks are self-reflective. What I was trying to say there was that it is obviously enormously important whether one's friends, neighbors and relatives are having one, two, three, or more children - to MOST people. That's why norms are norms, and why they change rather slowly. However, when times are bad, we know that birth rates do change in response (along with age at marriage), and if times stay bad long enough, the children "put off for awhile" may never get born. However, I think that increasing numbers of people are trying to actively decide whether & how many children to have - which may be "rising above" norms (as you put it) or setting new ones. I know people who believe the world's so messed up that it would be cruel to bring kids into it, or who are trying to be environmentally responsible and not have kids themselves, or who think they'd be lousy parents, while they're rather good at what they do now. These people may be affected by norms, but they are clearly trying to think the matter through, and the result is (on the average) less kids. I think that fertility in the U.S. today is being affected by lots of variables. To name a few: 1) Women know they may have to support any children they have themselves, and so may chose to pursue a career AND have less children. 2) Environmental awareness and political/philosophical discouragement in general may lead to less or no children. 3) Young couples face a diminished standard of living from their parents, and may have less children and both work to compensate. 4) The "warm fuzzy" effect of having children may lose its appeal in comparison with vacations in Baha, the single or couple-no-kids lifestyle, or the opportunity & demands of a great job. 5) The AFDC system may be affecting fertility, although perhaps not (as popularly believed) by increasing it. I believe there is some evidence that AFDC mothers have less children than poor women who manage to stay off welfare. 6) The increase in economic insecurity and poverty of the past 15 years may have decreased fertility among some groups, and increased it among others. (I'm sure there are more I haven't thought of just now, as well.) I think that's enough from me, for now. I'll leave the question of "culture" and "punishment" for someone else to tackle first, if they like. Thanks to Joe and Isaac for filling us in on the missing messages. And thanks to Dudley for the interesting answers to demographic questions! Pamela Behan From dhenwood@panix.com Sat Jul 2 09:48:58 MDT 1994 >From dhenwood@panix.com Sat Jul 2 09:48:51 1994 Return-Path: dhenwood@panix.com Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id JAA05937; Sat, 2 Jul 1994 09:48:49 -0600 Received: by panix.com id AA25324 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 2 Jul 1994 11:48:46 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 11:48:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Henwood Subject: URPE summer conference To: pkt@csf.colorado.edu, femisa@csf.colorado.edu, ipe@csf.colorado.edu, psn@csf.colorado.edu, ppn@csf.colorado.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ** From dhenwood@panix.com Sat Jul 2 09:51:56 MDT 1994 >From dhenwood@panix.com Sat Jul 2 09:51:46 1994 Return-Path: dhenwood@panix.com Received: from panix.com (panix.com [198.7.0.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id JAA06145; Sat, 2 Jul 1994 09:51:45 -0600 Received: by panix.com id AA25669 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4); Sat, 2 Jul 1994 11:51:43 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Jul 1994 11:51:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Doug Henwood Subject: URPE summer conference To: pkt@csf.colorado.edu, femisa@csf.colorado.edu, ipe@csf.colorado.edu, psn@csf.colorado.edu, ppn@csf.colorado.edu Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Apologies to multiple recipients of this message. The Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) will hold its annual summer conference August 20-23 in Litchfield, Conn. The theme is full employment - is it possible, and if so, how do we get there? Three nightly plenaries will explore this topic, and p anels and worshops will explore this and other topics in politics, economics, and pedagogy. Besides the serious stuff, there will be parties, recreation, and hanging out at a summer camp in rural northwestern Connecticut. To register, print and fill out the form below. For information, contact the URPE national office, address and phone number below. Thanks! By the way, childcare is available - we just need plenty of notice. Once you register, THEN YOU WILL RECEIVE A MAP WITH DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO GET TO THE SUMMER CONFERENCE SITE. Summer Conference Registration Form Please return to: URPE National Office c/o Department of Economics University of California Riverside, CA 92521 Name___________________________________________________ Address________________________________________________ Phone__________________________________________________ Number of Adults Registered _____ Number of Children Registered ____ Number of Children needing childcare _____ Ages of Children _____ Number of People eating vegetarian food _____ Are you an URPE member _____ {check off below if you wish to join} Date and time of arrival __________ Date and time of departure ______ Lodging preferred: Co-ed cabin _____ Single gender cabin _____ Space for pitching tent _____ Note: For each of the above arrangements, please bring your own sleeping bag or bedding and towels For day visits: Day(s) and meal(s) of attendence ________________ For all Registrations: Total conference fees........................_______ New URPE membership with RRPE ($50 or $30 low income).............._______ New URPE membership without RRPE ($15)......._______ 15% Late Registration Fee (for all registrations postmarked after 15 August)............._______ Total Amount Enclosed........................_______ A non-refundable deposit of $30 per adult plus any membership fees must accompany this registration. Do Not Write Below This Line _____________________________________________________________________ Amount received: _____# adults _____# days or _____entire conference _____# children _____# days or _____entire conference _____Check _____Cash _____Traverlers Checks Income Level ____High ` _____Medium _____Low _____Very Low Summer Conference Rates High income/ Institutionally Subsidized Middle Low Very Low Income Income Income Overnigt Rates Entire Conference Adults $300 $190 $126 $100 Children (6-18) $190 $130 $100 $80 Children(under 6) $135 $85 $83 $75 Infants (free for URPE members) Maximum Family Rate $600 $500 $350 $300 Per day Adults $110 $70 $55 $45 Children (6-18) $90 $50 $35 $30 Children(under 6) $45 $30 $20 $15 Infants (free) Income Categories Very low Low Middle High Household Size 1 $0-9,000 9,001-15,000 15,001-35,000 over 35,000 2 $0-10,000 10,001-19,000 19,001-50,000 over 50,001 3 $0-12,000 12,001-23,000 23,001-55,000 over 55,001 4 $0-14,000 14,001-28,000 28,001-60,000 over 60,001 The summer conference is located at Camp Awosting in Litchfield, Connecticut and will be held from August 20-23. For further information please contact Debbie Olsen at the URPE National Office, (909)787-5037x1580. From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Mon Jul 11 12:49:05 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Mon Jul 11 12:49:03 1994 Return-Path: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA11347 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 1994 12:49:02 -0600 Received: from taweret.Colorado.EDU (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id MAA19633 for ; Mon, 11 Jul 1994 12:49:02 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by taweret.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id MAA12264; Mon, 11 Jul 1994 12:49:01 -0600 Date: Mon, 11 Jul 1994 12:49:00 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela Subject: fertility/population growth To: PPN List Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Since I put the Statistical Abstracts fertility data in my last message, I haven't seen any further discussion. I believe that this inverse relation between income and fertility holds true in most nations. Has anyone found any contradictory evidence? (I believe Nigeria is an exception, but I haven't heard of many others.) If not, we can begin to consider the implications of such a relation. For instance, it suggests that nations which desire a lower birth rate need to improve opportunities for their poorest citizens - or reduce inequality - in order to reduce fertility. It also suggests that the higher status of women typically found in higher income groups, including higher education and relative autonomy, may need to be deliberately encouraged & supported in other social classes as a prerequisite to lower birth rates. Furthermore, it suggests that "First-World" nations which desire other, "Third-World" nations to reduce their population growth, have a stake in the prosperity and social equity of those nations. What are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, and how would the above affect them? Pamela Behan From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Tue Jul 12 12:07:30 MDT 1994 >From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Tue Jul 12 12:07:29 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 MAA19321 for ; Tue, 12 Jul 1994 12:07:28 -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 LAA10704; Tue, 12 Jul 1994 11:07:12 -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 AA18623; Tue, 12 Jul 94 11:07:08 -0700 Received: by towel.wpd.sgi.com (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) for @relay.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA07858; Tue, 12 Jul 94 11:07:06 -0700 From: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Message-Id: <9407121107.ZM7856@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 1994 11:07:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: Behan Pamela "fertility/population growth" (Jul 11, 12:50) 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 (3.1b.0 21jan94 MediaMail) To: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU, Subject: Re: fertility/population growth Cc: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Pamela: On Jul 11, 12:50, Behan Pamela wrote: > Subject: fertility/population growth > If not, we can begin to consider the implications of such a relation. > For instance, it suggests that nations which desire a lower birth rate > need to improve opportunities for their poorest citizens - or reduce > inequality - in order to reduce fertility. There seems to be something of the _post hoc, propter hoc_ fallacy here. Just because the sequence (poorer citizens have larger families) is true, does not mean the latter is a consequence of the former (poorer citizens have larger families *because* they are poorer). As a control, how large are Eskimo families (I'm asking without knowing the answer)? Irish? Cherokee? There may be something cultural here, that transcends mere economic status. > > It also suggests that the higher status of women typically found in higher > income groups, including higher education and relative autonomy, may need > to be deliberately encouraged & supported in other social classes as a > prerequisite to lower birth rates. "Higher status" from whose point of view? You might be hard-pressed to convince a poor Muslim that his wife has "lower status" than that of a single American working woman making 65K writing ASICs... > > Furthermore, it suggests that "First-World" nations which desire other, > "Third-World" nations to reduce their population growth, have a stake in > the prosperity and social equity of those nations. So, what--we throw money at them? Reject the notion that "third-worlders" view children as economic units--no matter how opaque their culture may appear to us. The next step along this path is the sort of cultural hegemonism which, in the nineteenth century, led to the frenzy of Victorian evangelistic crusades... ("The horror, the horror...") > > What are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, and how would > the above affect them? Here's a couple: o enforced birth control o the Chinese solution > > Pamela Behan >-- End of excerpt from Behan Pamela -- Joe "Joe" Heinrich Almost Online:HTTP://towel.wpd.sgi.com 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 :> From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 20 16:47:05 MDT 1994 >From behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Wed Jul 20 16:47:04 1994 Return-Path: behan@osiris.Colorado.EDU Received: from osiris.Colorado.EDU (osiris.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.16]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id QAA07889 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 16:47:04 -0600 Received: from taweret.Colorado.EDU (taweret.Colorado.EDU [128.138.151.21]) by osiris.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with ESMTP id QAA17355 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 16:47:03 -0600 Received: (behan@localhost) by taweret.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) id QAA14472; Wed, 20 Jul 1994 16:47:01 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 1994 16:46:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Behan Pamela Subject: re: fertility/pop. growth To: PPN List Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Joe Heinrich raises the question of whether an alternative explanation exists for the statistical relationship between fertility and income, besides income determining fertility. He suggests that culture might present such an explanation, for instance, for Eskimo, Irish, or Cherokee families. If all we had was fertility data for the U.S., Joe's point would be hard to refute, although it doesn't explain the higher fertility of lower income white women. Ethnic minority status in the U.S. is certainly associated with lower income. However, as I understand it, lower income is associated with higher fertility internationally - in diverse cultures, heterogenous and homogenous societies, cross-nationally, etc. Some dynamic is operating here which goes beyond culture; our readings this spring suggested that poorer people need more children than wealthier people, for a number of reasons. These include help with labor intensive work such as farming, assurance that at least one child will survive to provide security for the parents in old age, status for the mother/father in societies where that is a poor woman/man's only source of status, having a large family network to use in finding work or getting help in bad times, having more family members to contribute to the pooled family income, etc. Thus, an inverse relation between income and fertility is not so easy to dismiss, or to explain away. Joe also asks for a definition of "higher status" for women, although I specifically mentioned higher education and relative autonomy in that context. Women's education is highly correlated (inversely) with fertility, as is women's employment. There are many ways to interpret and argue such a correlation, of course - I don't know how many PPN subscribers really want to pursue every alternative possibility of such facts. The Muslim husband's view of his wife's status (subjective) isn't at issue here; I'm discussing objective criteria related to women's economic and social independence. A third question raised by Joe is whether we can do anything useful with the idea that the First World has a stake in the prosperity and social equity of the Third World. I would argue that the implications of this notion are not Victorian at all (nor do they include "throwing money at them"). They suggest, instead, that the First World is not indulging in charity work when it takes an interest in Third World conditions - it is looking out for its own future. Furthermore, when the First World indulges in exploitive economic or political behavior towards the Third World, it is stabbing itself in the foot (so to speak). I repeat, what are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, and how would the above considerations affect them? Pamela Behan From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Fri Jul 22 10:57:16 MDT 1994 >From joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com Fri Jul 22 10:57:15 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 KAA07893 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 10:57:07 -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 JAA22918; Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:57:06 -0700 Received: from towel.wpd.sgi.com by relay.sgi.com via SMTP (920330.SGI/920502.SGI) for @sgigate.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA01022; Fri, 22 Jul 94 09:57:04 -0700 Received: by towel.wpd.sgi.com (931110.SGI/911001.SGI) for @relay.sgi.com:ppn@csf.colorado.edu id AA21294; Fri, 22 Jul 94 09:57:02 -0700 From: joeh@towel.wpd.sgi.com (Joe Heinrich) Message-Id: <9407220957.ZM21292@towel.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 09:57:00 -0700 In-Reply-To: Behan Pamela "re: fertility/pop. growth" (Jul 20, 16:54) 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 (3.1b.0 21jan94 MediaMail) To: 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 On Jul 20, 16:54, Behan Pamela wrote: > Subject: re: fertility/pop. growth > > Joe Heinrich raises the question of whether an alternative > explanation exists for the statistical relationship between fertility and > income, besides income determining fertility. He suggests that culture > might present such an explanation, for instance, for Eskimo, Irish, or > Cherokee families. Pamela: That's not exactly what I'm suggesting. I sug- gest that there may be other statistical rela- tionships (cultural, religious, geographical) which are just as potent in determining fertil- ity. This may not be a relationship with a single-modal cause (income). (Then again, I may be wrong. Admittedly, I'm not a demographer.) > > If all we had was fertility data for the U.S., Joe's point would be > hard to refute, although it doesn't explain the higher fertility of lower > income white women. Ethnic minority status in the U.S. is certainly > associated with lower income. I agree: associative, but not proven to be causal. > > However, as I understand it, lower income is associated with > higher fertility internationally - in diverse cultures, heterogenous and > homogenous societies, cross-nationally, etc. Once again: associative, but not causal. > ...Some dynamic is operating > here which goes beyond culture; Agreed. But doesn't obviate culture or religion as dynamics. I.e., do Catholics have large fami- lies for cultural or economic reasons? Mormons have larger-than-average families; is this an economic or a culteral artifact? > ...our readings this spring suggested that > poorer people need more children than wealthier people, for a number of > reasons. These include help with labor intensive work such as farming, > assurance that at least one child will survive to provide security for the > parents in old age, status for the mother/father in societies where that > is a poor woman/man's only source of status, having a large family network > to use in finding work or getting help in bad times, having more family > members to contribute to the pooled family income, etc. These examples seem to be as much a component of culture as they are of economic status (income). o The decision to farm is as cultural as it is economic o Providing security is most likely economic o Status for mother/father is as cultural as it is economic o Having a large family...in bad times ("bad" undefined) is as cultural as it is economic o Helping with pooled income is obviously economic 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. > > Thus, an inverse relation between income and fertility is not so > easy to dismiss, or to explain away. I'm not saying there's no correlation; just that there are other correlations (cultural, reli- gious) that cannot be dismissed just because they do not span evenly across the entire database. > > > Joe also asks for a definition of "higher status" for women, > although I specifically mentioned higher education and relative autonomy > in that context. Women's education is highly correlated (inversely) with > fertility, as is women's employment. > > There are many ways to interpret and argue such a correlation, of > course - I don't know how many PPN subscribers really want to pursue > every alternative possibility of such facts. The Muslim husband's view > of his wife's status (subjective) isn't at issue here; I'm discussing > objective criteria related to women's economic and social independence. I think we can safely objectify this as the Muslim view of women. Do western women of "economic and social independence" enjoy upper status in the Muslim world? They don't seem to. The correlation instead seems to be inverse. Those who stay home and raise families, remaining financially *dependent* upon their male partner, have higher social status in the Muslim world. (Okay, Eastern Muslim). Is the prime distinction between the western and Muslim woman economic or cultural? Cultural. > A third question raised by Joe is whether we can do anything > useful with the idea that the First World has a stake in the prosperity > and social equity of the Third World. I would argue that the > implications of this notion are not Victorian at all (nor do they include > "throwing money at them"). > > They suggest, instead, that the First World is not indulging in > charity work when it takes an interest in Third World conditions - it is > looking out for its own future. Furthermore, when the First World > indulges in exploitive economic or political behavior towards the Third > World, it is stabbing itself in the foot (so to speak). For argument's sake let's say that, as you pro- pose, rates of higher fertility *are* primarily income-linked. Besides throwing money at the problem, what solutions would you suggest? > > > > > I repeat, what are our usual prescriptions for reducing fertility, > and how would the above considerations affect them? First of all, what are the reasons for reducing fertility? Do these reasons translate meaning- fully into something acceptible to this target population? Or that the population even comprehends? Second, the above prescriptions depend upon who "our" is. In the US, I'd say the usual prescriptions are: o Abortion o birth control o abstinence o social stigma for a start. Which of these prescriptions would be palatable to Third World inhabitants? Oh well. There's always the Chinese solution. --Joe -- Joe "Joe" Heinrich starting_point 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 :>