biology a la Economist

It always surprises me how little people know about biology and the natural world. No wonder then that nearly half of the population thinks humans and dinosaurs coexisted at one point in time. Or that the planet is less than 10,000 years old. What is truly shocking however, is that even the well-educated are so ignorant of the basics. Below is another gem from this week's Economist.

Before we go there it is perhaps good to point out that much ignorance is due to propaganda from people who have an agenda. The agenda is often religious or couched in religious terms, but in the case of the Economist it is likely to find its origin in the capitalist dogma. The capitalist dogma that says private enterprise is the only road to happiness and prosperity. Here we go.

From the Economist, on fertility: "Malthus himself thought richer people would have more children and, as any biologist will tell you, animal populations increase when there is more food." So far so good, although if you are an astute fan of Hollywood movies you can already see who is being set up for later destruction. This time it isn't just Malthus but also "the biologists."

We go on:"To understand why wealthy people differ from well-fed animals, imagine yourself..." and it continues to give the most common rationalization as to why richer people have less offspring. I am sure you heard this before. When you are poor you need children to help you work the land or take care of you when you get older. That must be the single-best example of an after-the-fact rationalization ever. Can you imagine two young people having sex and thinking about this?

First, let's point out the obvious error. The reason the world population increased so quickly starting in the 1950-60's, doubling in a mere 44 years, is clearly due to more food. Everyone knows the poorly- named "green revolution" is to blame for the rapid rise. "Improved" agriculture with better yields made the boom possible. It had a dramatic impact in Europe and the US but even more so in Asia. China grew so quickly that it felt compelled to institute a population-control measure that even the Economist acknowledges was very effective at preventing disaster.

Yes well-fed people reproduce more quickly. Not in the least because most of their offspring survive when well fed. That is no different from well-fed animals. We are -horror of horrors- animals like all the other animals. However distasteful this may sound to religious zealots and wealthy capitalists alike, we are animals and our behavior is very similar to that of other animals.

Second, only after the population started growing and overcrowding became a problem, did fertility start to drop. If you look at it closely you can also see that the more urbanized a group is, the more its fertility drops. Urban populations experience more overcrowding. Ironically enough, the very same Economist article provides ample evidence for this. It points out how many societies saw enormous drops in fertility and how cities (Tehran is used as a prime example) saw larger drops than rural communities. All places with large drops that are mentioned are urban and overcrowded.

And that too is something we see in animals. When populations are stressed and overcrowding occurs, fertility drops.

Despite all the great rationalizations presented, (if you are a poor farmer, blah blah, but if you are a wealthy city dweller, blah, blah), this is not how people behave. They don't think, I am a poor farmer, I will need kids to help me work or take care of me when I am old. As bankers should know because they often say it when peddling 401ks or IRAs, young people never think about being old or what will happen to them when they are old. Young people just love to have sex, consequences be damned.

And so it is time for an immutable law on human behavior: humans don't act rationally, they rationalize their actions.