Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> In contrast, poor humans have more children than rich humans. How does this
> make sense, aren't humans supposed to be *smarter*?

Children are a resource, but they themselves require a great deal of 
resources to develop.

In agrarian cultures, the ROI on children makes it into the black fairly 
quickly.  All you have to do is feed them for a few years (less than 
10), and then they begin working for you.

In developed countries, you have to feed them for 20 years (or more), in 
addition to paying for their education (potentially as much or more than 
your house, *per child*).  Although the potential return is so much 
higher than in agrarian cultures, fewer people are willing (or able) to 
undertake the necessary cost.

Of course, you still have economic strata in developed countries.  The 
higher classes are not willing to let their children do worse than the 
current generation, and so invest more in their children.  This raises 
the inherent cost, making children even less attractive economically.

The poorer classes, however, are more than willing to let their kids "do 
without," substituting an inferior education (or forgoing it entirely), 
and even sacrificing nutritional quality.  This brings the cost per 
child down dramatically.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone (or at least, most people) sit down and 
figure out how much their kids will cost before deciding whether or not 
to have them, but it's interesting how well the economic cost 
corresponds to family size.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message