From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: The Return of Nasty, Brutish and Sh
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:12:18 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: alanm@igc.apc.org's message of 13 Dec 92 23:31:00 GMT

In article <1466601987@igc.apc.org> alanm@igc.apc.org (Alan McGowen) writes:

Just in case anyone is following this sorry thread...


   Sigurdsson's logic remains as bizarre as ever. He makes a flat 
   assertion of what he considers to be a self-evident truth. I post 
   statements from a standard recent introductory text on 
   anthropology which contradict him. He declares the statements to 
   be wrong, and demands proof for them. I post further statements 

 ...
   obvious to him but which the anthropologists in question hadn't 
   the wit to notice. He flips out at the statements I posted from 
   Barkow's _Darwin, Sex, and Status_ and declares them to be 
   obviously unscientific since they clash so severely with his 
   cultural myths.

 ...

   No, Sigurdsson. It's time for *you* to put up or shut up. Where 
   is *your* evidence? Give us data to prove your claim that hunter-
   gatherers have higher birth rates and infant mortality rates than 
   agriculturalists. Don't use outmoded editions of texts -- use a 
   contemporary one, or, if you prefer, referred journal articles. 

   [I wonder if Sigurdsson is able to guess the reason for the 
   difference between the first and third editions of Bates & Plog?
   Hmm... probably more creeping multiculturalism or the growing
   power of the PC crowd...]


Well, I'm sorry to say that UCSC has either not seen fit or not
been able to afford the third edition of Bates&Plog, the nearest copy
seems to be at UCSB... however I did browse through the selection,
quite illuminating. In particular Neel's thesis of lowered birth
rates through cultural mechanisms (extended lactation, post-partum
sex-taboos and herbal contraceptives) while presented in most every
text is far from accepted as the determining factor of population growth.
As to the specific question of birth
rates and mortality in the different cultures, I decided a quote
from Barkow should suffice as Alan seems rather fond of his work.

From: "Darwin, Sex and Status" JH Barkow, 1989, Univ Toronto Press.

p. 316

 "Low-technology societies tend to have high rates of fertility
and of mortality. Many children are born, many die, and population
remains fairly stable. The {\it demographic transition} begins
when through industrialization and public health measures, mortality
falls."

He goes on to discuss the second part of the transition seen in
Western Europe and sections of US where population levels off again
and worries the tendency towards couples not having children is
an unstable maladaptation... 

I was interested to see in some of the more recent texts 
(eg "Our Kind" by Bogin(?) the estimates of child mortality
in prehistoric h-g's are back up to 50% - and compared favourably
to chimpanzee pre-adult mortalities of 60-88%! 


Alan might also want to go back and re-read chapter 7.5
on the difference between ecological constraints on culture
and technological determinants, it might save him a lot
of energy in future debates...

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: sci.environment