They have always defined "women" very

narrowly. Neither my mom nor my sister

nor my wife nor my daughters would ever

have made the cut.

The sex ratio is running about 60-40 men-women in both India and China.



Let's work the math. Every 60 males are chasing 40 females. That means (60-40)/60, or a *third* of the men will be permanent bachelors.

All those men are liable to be pretty cranky too..

Hey, I've got a quick question:



If a fetus isn't human (or, one supposes, a person) in BBC speak, how can an abortion be a "it is a death sentence for unwanted girls"? Doesn't that rather imply personhood?

Sorry about the typo. I shouldn't start and finish a comment in two pieces.

Of course, another solution to 60-40 split is to promote homosexuality for the extra 20%.



Of course, from a darwinian viewpoint, those who favor girl children will have a better chance of passing their genes on to their grandchildren.

Those favoring boys will have to work harder to have any grandchildren.



In the long run, the problem will be self-correcting, it the short run where we will have some major problems (Like a death cult which promotes "martydom" for excess male children. Oh, we've already got that. Nevermind.)

Raoul:



What's the Darwinian viewpoint on the West, where abortion has driven most countries below replacement rate?

OJ:



You said "What's the Darwinian viewpoint on the West, where abortion has driven most countries below replacement rate?"



There may be some faulty logic there. Abortion, no matter how widespread, might very well have no effect on fertility rates. By that I mean that, in the West, women generally choose how many children they bear. I know my wife did.



Therefore, in a hypothetical world where non-abortion birth control was universally used and perfect (that is, abortions go to zero) the birth rate would remain unchanged.



Respectfully,

Jeff Guinn

Jeff:



That's an obfuscation. How can Darwin explain the fact that human populations are declining voluntarily? Isn't that reverse natural selection?

OJ:



Aaaargh. I was replying to the wrong post. The post is somewhat ahistorical. Skewed sex ratios have plagued certain cultures--sorry, passive voice, I meant to say certain cultures have perpetrated skewed sex ratios since time immemorial. The advent of abortion has meant these cultures have reached that end pre-partum rather than by exposing the newborn.



As for "reverse natural selection:" The theory of evolution (ToE) distinguishes between those sufficiently fit to propogate into the next, and those that aren't. If there is a genotypic element to choosing small families, then those with that genotype will be less prevalent in succeeding generations. For those whose genotype inclines towards large families, they will become more prevalent.



However, these decisions could be the result of cost-benefit calculations that might be wholly suitable at the level of the individual, but far less so for the species. (Think of how male lions are infanticidal when they take over a pride--not about cost benefit, but how evolved behavior can be adaptive at one level, but possibly less so at another).



This is a fascinating (to me, anyway) and complex topic. Far more so than this space, my intellect, and your other posters patience can allow. I may have mentioned this previously, but an excellent book that covers the ToE, evolutionary psychology, and mammallian female reproductive calculations is "Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection" by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. I'll be glad to loan you my copy.



Sincerely,

Jeff Guinn