A Darwinian account of the fertility opportunity hypothesis

Abstract

Reproduction is a sine qua non for the continuance of any gene pool. Therefore, it would be strange if natural selection failed to act on reproductive patterns, even among humans where the most characteristic adaptations are cognitive and culturally-mediated. In fact, the regularity of human fertility rate responses to variation in the opportunity structure has been documented in many contexts. Humans appear to be alert to environmental signs that indicate whether conditions for childbearing and nurture are more or less optimal, given the possibilities. Specifically, a perception that economic opportunity is expanding, so that relatively many children could probably be successfully raised to maturity, is associated with early marriage and larger family size.The growth and Encrease of Mankind is not so much stinted by anything in the nature of the Species, as it is from the cautious difficulty most People make to adventure on the state of marriage, from the prospect of the

Land Use and Marriage Timing in Nepal

“…Perceptions of environmental change and opportunity were theorized to be mechanisms linking land use to marriage, but it was not possible to include measures of these mechanisms in the analysis. Previous work suggests these perceptions play an important role in family formation (Abernethy, 1999;MacDonald, 1999). Furthermore, research from Nepal shows that there is significant variation in perceptions of environmental quality and degradation, and these worsening perceptions are linked to the creation of the built environment (Barber, Biddlecom, & Axinn, 2003).…”

An Empirical Test of a Neo-Malthusian Theory of Fertility Change

“…The best data exist on migration to the US, for which Clark, Hatton and Williamson (2002) Testing the third hypothesis is in some sense impossible. This is because according to Abernethy (1999) what matters are subjective perceptions of prosperity and these are of course next to impossible to measure. The recourse to subjective perceptions also makes the hypothesis almost non-falsifiable.…”

“…Some neo-Malthusians have developed a theory of fertility change that is based on two fundamental and inter-related premises (see Hardin 1968Hardin , 1974Abernethy 1993Abernethy , 1999Abernethy and Penaloza 2002;Cairns 2004). 1 First, scarcities and constraints keep fertility in check.…”

Too Materialistic to Get Married and Have Children?

“…Many explanations for low fertility and policy programs that have been offered thus far have focused on financial concerns over childbearing and childrearing, or the conflicts that women face between work and family [ 7 ], [ 8 ], [ 9 ], [ 10 ], [ 11 ], [ 12 ]. Examining these issues from a somewhat different angle, Li, Patel, Balliet, Tov, and Scollon [ 13 ] proposed that materialism—defined by Merriam-Webster as “a doctrine that the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the furtherance of material progress”—may be an important factor in explaining aversion toward marriage and procreation in the modern day and the observed differences between developed Asian and Western countries.…”