Globalisation

[The Brain]

To elaborate: I sometimes come across in Sweden the myth that social democracy created the wealth of the 20th century. It strikes me as bizarre. I don't see it when I look at Swedish history. Maybe I'm blind.

To play Devil's advocate, what is the counter argument?

The counter argument to the myth? Many things, among them that the Soc Dems didn't come to power until 1932 when Sweden already had experienced huge economic progress, progress which slowed down in the 1970s after the Soc Dems had made really major changes to tax rates etc over the course of the 60s. In the 30s-50s political changes were evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Another thing, if you think that care for the lesser well off was a major factor for growth, is that such care wasn't a Soc Dem invention but was already under way in the late 1800s with many political groups agreeing that society should help the poor. There is also generally a lack of plausible arguments put forward by the Soc Dem camp that would support the importance of social democracy over things like strong stable institutions, ongoing industrialization and similar.

[viper37]

Hanging everyone who comitted a violent (or even not so violent) crime in society for 500 years likley culled some of the genes correllated with a tendency to committ impulsive violence from the population.

Whereas, clearly, harsh punishments were unknown before, and endemic warfare couldn't possibly provide an outlet for the vast amount of genetically designed monsters who roamed the countryside. Amazingly, this remarkable genetic selection manifested itself in a weirdly compact moment of time, a mere 50 years.

Terrible science AND terrible history.

The death penalty in Western Europe was very limited after the fall of the Roman Empire due to the collapse of state power, the rise in influence of Christian bishops and the belief in retalitory violence among the new Barbarian elites as a positive good. The Death penalty was mostly limited to treason, cowardice in battle, etc. Murder you could pay off via wergild. The death penalty only really started to come back in vogue around the 13th century IIRC.

if you think a State's death penalty, yes, that was very limited, due to the King's weak power.  Local barons/lords/rulers did not hesitate to use death penalty though.

[The Brain]

Is there anything you consider good that isn't social democracy and is there anything you consider bad that is?

Yes, a lot of things. Without the aforementioned technological advances and a capitalist economic order, social democracy has no wealth to redistribute and it is inherent in it that it stifles both innovation and entrepreneurship. It's a very fine balance between redistribution that makes society fairer and better and redistribution that is punitive, inefficient or anti-innovative.

Furthermore social democrats tend to favor other feel-good or nanny state policies that I do not support in many cases, either by treating different people too equal ignoring their differences or by outright trying to legislate a "better" society. Examples would be too much emphasis on non-productive immigration, all that modern gender stuff including women's quotas, opposition against free trade and technologies like gene modifications etc.

I am merely a supporter of the social state that createday institutions to alleviate some of the basic life risks from citizens through various insurances etc. and I think that strong collective labor rights are good.

Fair enough, though of course I disagree that redistribution was what lifted people out of poverty.

[grumbler]

Self-regulation of population among HGs is reasonably well documented. The best studied are probably the !Kung San.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/656392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Both biology (long weaning periods - much longer than for other folks) and cultural adaptations are thought to contribute to such self-regulation - though how much is "conscious" in terms of deliberate pursuit of a goal of not stressing the environment is of course a matter of debate.

Certainly such self-regulation is one factor which could lead to a very low rate of population increase (in this article, the group being studied increased at a rate of 0.5%) which tends to avoid problems of boom and bust (though no doubt they occurred anyway, just not to the same extent as among agricultural peoples, whose rate on natural increase tends to be much higher).

In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective https://books.google.com/books?id=7yCpBRAY22UC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=birth+rates+among+the+ikung&source=bl&ots=LIV5JYhw3Z&sig=NsaCol8Pz3FcUCEkdP-_PRv36cQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOveeok-bTAhWJ7YMKHb0QBC8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=birth%20rates%20among%20the%20ikung&f=false
one of the writers notes (p. 183) that (forgive transcription errors)

... It is widely believed that the iKung's low fertility rates are due to their long interbirth intervals.  However, if more iKung women gave birth throughout the entire repoructive span, TFR [Total fertlity rate] would increase to more than 6 births.

Elsewhere, I have attributed the early termination of reproductive spans to epidemics of infectious infertility intensified by the migration of the Herero and other pastoralists to the region [cite].  iKung fertility rates declined following the migrations... the TFR of post-reproductive women was 4.  The cohort TFR of the neighboring Herero pastoralists was 2.7.   The fertility rates in the region began to rise after the introduction of health posts...

(p. 184) Among the Kutchin, the interbirth interval is the same for both cohorts [nomadic and settled] so the rise in birth rates can be largely attributed to differences in primary and secondary sterility rates... 

The indication is that it isn't a difference in IBI, but in the onset of sterility, that distinguishes the HG birth rates from those of more settled people.  It isn't, then, a matter of self-regulation.  A table (p. 182) notes that the Ache, HG tribes of Paraguay, have a TFR of 8 and an IBI of 37 months.  The key is that they have very low sterility rates. 

I agree that longer weaning periods probably account for most of the difference between IBI in agricultural/pastoral societies vs HG types.  I don't know of any evidence that sexual practices are different, though.  I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

[Malthus]

Self-regulation of population among HGs is reasonably well documented. The best studied are probably the !Kung San.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/656392?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Both biology (long weaning periods - much longer than for other folks) and cultural adaptations are thought to contribute to such self-regulation - though how much is "conscious" in terms of deliberate pursuit of a goal of not stressing the environment is of course a matter of debate.

Certainly such self-regulation is one factor which could lead to a very low rate of population increase (in this article, the group being studied increased at a rate of 0.5%) which tends to avoid problems of boom and bust (though no doubt they occurred anyway, just not to the same extent as among agricultural peoples, whose rate on natural increase tends to be much higher).

In Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective https://books.google.com/books?id=7yCpBRAY22UC&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=birth+rates+among+the+ikung&source=bl&ots=LIV5JYhw3Z&sig=NsaCol8Pz3FcUCEkdP-_PRv36cQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOveeok-bTAhWJ7YMKHb0QBC8Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=birth%20rates%20among%20the%20ikung&f=false
one of the writers notes (p. 183) that (forgive transcription errors)

... It is widely believed that the iKung's low fertility rates are due to their long interbirth intervals.  However, if more iKung women gave birth throughout the entire repoructive span, TFR [Total fertlity rate] would increase to more than 6 births.

Elsewhere, I have attributed the early termination of reproductive spans to epidemics of infectious infertility intensified by the migration of the Herero and other pastoralists to the region [cite].  iKung fertility rates declined following the migrations... the TFR of post-reproductive women was 4.  The cohort TFR of the neighboring Herero pastoralists was 2.7.   The fertility rates in the region began to rise after the introduction of health posts...

(p. 184) Among the Kutchin, the interbirth interval is the same for both cohorts [nomadic and settled] so the rise in birth rates can be largely attributed to differences in primary and secondary sterility rates... 

The indication is that it isn't a difference in IBI, but in the onset of sterility, that distinguishes the HG birth rates from those of more settled people.  It isn't, then, a matter of self-regulation.  A table (p. 182) notes that the Ache, HG tribes of Paraguay, have a TFR of 8 and an IBI of 37 months.  The key is that they have very low sterility rates. 

I agree that longer weaning periods probably account for most of the difference between IBI in agricultural/pastoral societies vs HG types.  I don't know of any evidence that sexual practices are different, though.  I could certainly be convinced otherwise.

I don't understand this point - if birth spacing is something the HGs consciously control (your cite claims lactation can't explain birth spacing longer than 2 years at p. 198 - yet we know birth spacing longer than 3 years is the norm among HGs: see http://anthro.vancouver.wsu.edu/media/Course_files/anth-302-barry-hewlett/melkonner.pdf , where the authors determiner that birth spacing greater than 3 years is found in each HG group they surveyed), and if diseases causing infertility have been prevalent throughout history (your cite, p. 199) - then why, in response to such limits, don't HGs simply decrease birth spacing to increase overall fertility? Your cite simply states that disease *must* account for low growth rates:

"Many authors believe that diseases affecting fertility are too new to have greatly affected reproduction in our species history. But even using the lowest hunter-gatherer survival rates, we cannot account for low growth rates without them".

There certainly are authors who claim that, in part, large family sizes are to some extent a conscious choice in premodern farming societies - which presumably means small family sizes may be in premodern HG societies, as well.   

You may find this interesting:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/17/4694.full

The rise of agriculture during the Neolithic period has paradoxically been associated with worldwide population growth despite increases in disease and mortality. We examine the effects of sedentarization and cultivation on disease load, mortality, and fertility among Agta foragers. We report increased disease and mortality rates associated with sedentarization alongside an even larger increase in fertility associated with both participation in cultivation and sedentarization. Thus, mothers who transition to agriculture have higher reproductive fitness. We provide the first empirical evidence, to our knowledge, of an adaptive mechanism behind the expansion of agriculture, explaining how we can reconcile the Neolithic increase in morbidity and mortality with the observed demographic expansion.

The point is this: even though the prevalence of disease increased with sedentary life, as did childhood mortality, fertility still increased even more.

For this debate, the interesting part is that the researchers don't even try to answer *why* fertility rates change - they simply note that the *do*:

We found that more permanent camps had significantly higher childhood mortality rates, matching archaeological evidence from the Neolithic (6). Our results also revealed significantly higher fertility rates in settled women, particularly those transitioning from foraging to cultivation. Agriculture has long been associated with increases in fertility (85, 86), because the reduction in energy expenditure with settlement (87) and increased carbohydrate consumption (10, 88) are associated with increased BMI, which correlates with shorter interbirth intervals and higher fertility (89). The association between BMI and transition suggests a pathway through which increased cultivation could lead to increased fertility. An additional pathway, as suggested by Kramer and Boone (90), considers the increased economic productivity of children in agriculture, which reduces maternal constraints and thus increases a woman's fertility. Our study remains correlative, leaving unanswered the question of the causal direction between fertility, sedentarization, and food production.

They state that there *may* be different reasons: increase in BMI leading to decreased birth spacing (a non-conscious factor); and "... the increased economic productivity of children in agriculture, which reduces maternal constraints and thus increases a woman's fertility". They don't go into detail as to what these "maternal constraints" are.

This paper may be interesting, but requires purchase:

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/340239

[Tamas]

Are we arguing that in HG societies they practiced birth control by abstinence because they were aware of their limited ability to support children?

[Malthus]

Are we arguing that in HG societies they practiced birth control by abstinence because they were aware of their limited ability to support children?

Depends on what you mean by "their limited ability to support children".

The argument is that they used various methods (either consciously or unconsciously) to control the number of children they had because it was simply too difficult (depending on environmental factors) for a band of HGs to take care of more than a limited number of children. This had the indirect effect of leading to a low rate of population increase.

Conversely, for settled agriculturalists, having lots and lots of children was, economically, a good idea: more kids = more workforce.

You see the same sort of thing in modern society. Today, in the industrialized West, having lots of kids is tough, economically. So family sizes are small, on average - below replacement rate in many cases.

The debate is this: in the modern West people control their birthrate through contraception. They do it consciously. HGs didn't have contraception, so how did they control it?

One theory was that they did it by lengthy weaning periods. This is known to have a contraceptive effect, and HGs take much longer to wean than settled folks. The problem is, this effect lasts at most 2 years (allegedly) and so can't fully account for lengthy HG birth spacing (known to be greater than 3 years).

One of the papers linked above addresses this question: if settling down to agriculture made people on average more disease ridden, and more likely to die younger, why was it so successful in increasing population? The answer: it lead to much higher birthrates.

Why?

Was it simply a physical process - settling down made people more fertile? Was there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*? 

[Valmy]

Was there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*?

It would be surprised if this was not the case. After all I have a letter from one of my wife's ancestors saying how happy he is he still has three sons to help him on the farm with one more about to be old enough to be useful. He was glad only three of his boys were conscripted into the Confederate Army (they were Unionists in Alabama). Two of his sons died almost immediately since they were not inoculated against smallpox. The other one was killed in his first battle.

He was pretty explicit that he had an urgent need to make as many kids as he could in order to survive. Once his first wife died he married a younger woman and kept going. Those were the days.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think you guys were too romantic about hunting-gathering earlier.

In what way is that more comfortable or safe than agriculture? With agriculture you can stockpile, and predict. If you are a hunter-gatherer you are not less exposed to unpredictable natural forces, but more, much more.

You're asking this of someone using the handle "Malthus"

[Valmy]

You're asking this of someone using the handle "Malthus"

[grumbler]

Was there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*?

It would be surprised if this was not the case. After all I have a letter from one of my wife's ancestors saying how happy he is he still has three sons to help him on the farm with one more about to be old enough to be useful. He was glad only three of his boys were conscripted into the Confederate Army (they were Unionists in Alabama). Two of his sons died almost immediately since they were not inoculated against smallpox. The other one was killed in his first battle.

He was pretty explicit that he had an urgent need to make as many kids as he could in order to survive. Once his first wife died he married a younger woman and kept going. Those were the days.

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely.  I think that the explanation of difference in IBI being due to different female fertility rates (perhaps a result of diet or caloric stability) is a far more credible than the explanation that it was due to different sexual practices.

[Oexmelin]

What I said your rationale for finding it unlikely?

[Tamas]

As if nowadays rampant poverty and the inability to support more children adequately stops people from having more children. I refuse to believe  the humans of more than 14 thousand years before us would have a better grasp on procreation and it's effects on their local economic and natural circumstances, than people of today.

[Malthus]

Was there an element of conscious choice involved - that farmers *wanted* more children, and so had more *deliberately*?

It would be surprised if this was not the case. After all I have a letter from one of my wife's ancestors saying how happy he is he still has three sons to help him on the farm with one more about to be old enough to be useful. He was glad only three of his boys were conscripted into the Confederate Army (they were Unionists in Alabama). Two of his sons died almost immediately since they were not inoculated against smallpox. The other one was killed in his first battle.

He was pretty explicit that he had an urgent need to make as many kids as he could in order to survive. Once his first wife died he married a younger woman and kept going. Those were the days.

But this implies that paleolithic men abstained from sex because they did not want children.  I find this assertion unlikely.  I think that the explanation of difference in IBI being due to different female fertility rates (perhaps a result of diet or caloric stability) is a far more credible than the explanation that it was due to different sexual practices.

It may not have been a straightforward conscious decision to practice sex differently for the express purpose of limiting the number of children, but wrapped up in customary taboos and the like. We know various cultures had taboos that restricted sex at various times.

Allegedly, food taboos limiting what HG women were allowed to eat also had an impact in lowering fertility.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12283361

"In foraging populations, direct methods of contraception or to limit the number of children or increase the birth interval include rules concerning postpartum abstinence, induced abortion, and infanticide" - at p. 151, below: 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=kZwUAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA153&lpg=PA153&dq=taboos+limiting+fertility+in+hunter+gatherers&source=bl&ots=VuxPesEyuS&sig=DsOlY882hnlYkBJkAQtaCIpv7eE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2nPHlmejTAhWEx4MKHT44CYMQ6AEINDAD#v=onepage&q=taboos%20limiting%20fertility%20in%20hunter%20gatherers&f=false

Restriction of sex is not the only way to deliberately limit number of children - there is also abortion and infanticide, which also happened (though to what degree is controversial).

[Oexmelin]

It's an article of faith, then (I refuse to believe). Today's large families living in poverty are taking place in atomized societies which do not enforce strenuously sex taboos (quite different from the small, and highly cohesive hunter-gatherer or horticulturalist societies), and/or in societies themselves the inheritors of agricultural societies where having multiple children has been heavily encouraged for hundred, if not thousands of years. 

It's not like we don't have sources for that either, from hunter-gatherers themselves: 17th and 18th century missionaries in North America had that explained to them quite clearly by the people they attempted to convert (and, in the cases of Catholic missionaries, their celibacy became associated with the form of celebrated masculinity which proved their valor - their refusal to engage in battle proved more puzzling).

Paleolithic people =/= retarded.