Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 325–360 | Cite as

Does observed fertility maximize fitness among New Mexican men?

A test of an optimality model and a new theory of parental investment in the embodied capital of offspring
  • Hillard S. KaplanEmail author
  • Jane B. Lancaster
  • Sara E. Johnson
  • John A. Bock
Article

Abstract

Our objective is to test an optimality model of human fertility that specifies the behavioral requirements for fitness maximization in order (a) to determine whether current behavior does maximize fitness and, if not, (b) to use the specific nature of the behavioral deviations from fitness maximization towards the development of models of evolved proximate mechanisms that may have maximized fitness in the past but lead to deviations under present conditions. To test the model we use data from a representative sample of 7,107 men living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, between 1990 and 1993. The model we test proposes that low fertility in modern settings maximizes number of grandchildren as a result of a trade-off between parental fertility and next generation fertility. Results do not show the optimization, although the data do reveal a trade-off between parental fertility and offspring education and income.

We propose that two characteristics of modern economies have led to a period of sustained fertility reduction and to a corresponding lack of association between income and fertility. The first is the direct link between costs of investment and wage rates due to the forces of supply and demand for labor in competitive economies. The second is the increasing emphasis on cumulative knowledge, skills, and technologies in the production of resources. Together they produce historically novel conditions. These two features of modern economies may interact with evolved psychological and physiological mechanisms governing fertility and parental investment to produce behavior that maximizes the economic productivity of lineages at the expense of fitness. If cognitive processes evolved to track diminishing returns to parental investment and if physiological processes evolved to regulate fertility in response to nutritional state and patterns of breast feeding, we might expect non-adaptive responses when returns from parental investment do not diminish until extremely high levels are reached. With high economic payoffs from parental investment, people have begun to exercise cognitive regulation of fertility through contraception and family planning practices. Those cognitive processes maynot have evolved to handle fitness trade-offs between fertility and parental investment.

Key words

Male fertility Fitness Human capital Modern low fertility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barkow, J. H., and N. Burley 1980 Human Fertility, Evolutionary Biology, and the Demographic Transition.Ethology and Sociobiology 1:163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett, W. S. 1985The Perry Preschool Program and Its Long-Term Effects: A Benefit-Cost Analysis. Early Childhood Policy Papers No. 2. Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, G. S. 1975Human Capital, second ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 1981A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, G. S., and N. Tomes 1976 Child Endowments and the Quantity and Quality of Children.Journal of Political Economy 84:s143-s163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, G. S., K. M. Murphy, and R. Tamura 1990 Human Capital, Fertility and Economic Growth.Journal of Political Economy 98:s12-s37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betzig, L. L. 1986Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  8. Blurton Jones, N. G. 1986 Bushman Birth Spacing: A Test for Optimal Interbirth Intervals.Ethology and Sociobiology 7:91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blurton Jones, N. G., and R. M. Sibly 1978 Testing Adaptiveness of Culturally Determined Behavior: Do Bushman Women Maximize Their Reproductive Success by Spacing Births Widely and Foraging Seldom? InHuman Behavior and Adaptation, N. G. Blurton Jones and V. Reynolds, eds. Pp. 135–157. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  10. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. 1992 Reproductive Decisions. InEvolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, E. A. Smith and B. Winterhalder, eds. Pp. 339–374. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Charnov, E. 1993Life History Invariants: Some Explorations of Symmetry in Evolutionary Ecology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Consortium for Longitudinal Studies 1983As the Twig Is Bent: Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Cromer, A. 1993Uncommon Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Cronk, L. 1991 Human Behavioral Ecology.Annual Reviews in Anthropology 20:25–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Easterlin, R. A. 1987Birth and Fortune: The Impact of Numbers on Personal Welfare, second ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hart, B., and T. Risley 1995Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
  17. Henry, L. 1961 Some Data on Natural Fertility.Eugenics Quarterly 8:81–91.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, K., and A. M. Hurtado 1995Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Hoff-Ginsberg, E., and T. Tardif 1995 Socioeconomic Status and Parenting. InThe Handbook of Parenting, vol. 2, M. Bornstein, ed. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Holekamp, K. E., and L. Smale 1991 Dominance Acquisition during Mammalian Social Development: The Inheritance of Maternal Rank.American Zoologist 31:306–317.Google Scholar
  21. Hood, J. 1992Caveat Emptor: The Head Start Scam. Policy Analysis No. 187. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Howell, N. 1979Demography of the Dobe !Kung. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Irons, W. 1983 Human Female Reproductive Strategies. InSocial Behavior of Female Vertebrates, S. K. Wasser, ed. Pp. 169–213. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. 1990 Let’s Make Our Perspectives Broader Rather Than Narrower: A Comment on Turke’s “Which Humans Behave Adaptively, and Why Does It Matter?” and on the So-called DA-DP Debate.Ethology and Sociobiology 11:361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 1993 Monogamy, Contraception, and the Cultural and Reproductive Success Hypothesis.Behavior and Brain Sciences 16:295–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 1995 Cultural and Reproductive Success in Traditional Societies. Ms. in author’s possession, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, H. 1994a Evolutionary and Wealth Flows Theories of Fertility: Empirical Tests and New Models.Population and Development Review 20:753–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 1994b A Theory of Human Parental Investment and Fertility. Ms. in author’s possession, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, H. S., J. B. Lancaster, J. A. Bock, and S. E. Johnson 1995 Fertility and Fitness among Albuquerque Men: A Competitive Labour Market Theory. InHuman Reproductive Decisions: Biological and Social Perspectives, R. I. M. Dunbar, ed. Pp. 96–136. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lack, D. 1954The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 1968Ecological Adaptations for Breeding in Birds. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  32. Lam, D. 1986 The Dynamics of Population Growth, Differential Fertility, and Inequality.American Economic Review 76:1103–1116.Google Scholar
  33. Lancaster, J. B. in press An Evolutionary History of Human Reproductive Strategies and the Status of Women in Relation to Population Growth and Social Stratification. InEvolution and Feminism, P. A. Gowaty, ed. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Lancaster, J. B., and C. S. Lancaster 1987 The Watershed: Change in Parental-Investment and Family-Formation Strategies in the Course of Human Evolution. InParenting across the Life Span: Biosocial Dimensions, J. B. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. S. Rossi, and L. R. Sherrod, eds. Pp. 187–205. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, P. C., P. Majluf, and I. J. Gordon 1991 Growth, Weaning and Maternal Investment from a Comparative Perspective. Journal of Zoology (London) 225:99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Perusse, D. 1993 Cultural and Reproductive Success in Industrial Societies: Testing the Relationship at the Proximate and Ultimate Levels (with comments).Brain and Behavioral Sciences 16:267–323.Google Scholar
  37. Retherford, R. D. 1993 Demographic Transition and the Evolution of Intelligence: Theory and Evidence. Ms. in author’s possession, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, A. R. 1990 Evolutionary Economics of Human Reproduction.Ethology and Sociobiology 11:479–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 1993 Why Menopause?Evolutionary Ecology 7:406–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers, A. R., and N. G. Blurton Jones 1992 Allocation of Parental Care. Ms. in authors’ possession, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
  41. Schweinhart, L. J., H. V. Barnes, and D. P. Weikart 1993Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Education Research Foundation, No. 10. Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
  42. Simons, J. L. 1974The Effects of Income on Fertility. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Carolina Populations Center.Google Scholar
  43. Smith, C. C., and S. D. Fretwell 1974 The Optimal Balance between Size and Number of Offspring.American Naturalist 108:499–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stearns, S. C. 1992The Evolution of Life Histories. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Turke, P. W. 1989 Evolution and the Demand for Children.Population and Development Review 15:61–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. U. S. Department of Commerce 1992 U. S. Census of Population: General Population Characteristics: New Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
  47. U. S. Census of Population and Housing, New Mexico 1991a Summary Tape File 1, New Mexico (1990). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
  48. 1991b Summary Tape File 3, New Mexico (1990). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
  49. 1991c CP-1-33, Table 54, Pg. 82. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  50. U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1993 Highway statistics 1987. TD2.22.991. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  51. van Schaik, C. P. 1989 The Ecology of Social Relationships amongst Female Primates. InComparative Socioecology, V. Standen and R. A. Foley, eds. Pp. 195–218. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  52. Vining, D. R. 1986 Social versus Reproductive Success: The Central Theoretical Problem of Human Sociobiology.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9:167–260.Google Scholar
  53. Vitzthum, V. 1994 Comparative Study of Breastfeeding Structure and Its Relation to Human Reproductive Ecology.Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 37:307–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zigler, E., and S. J. Styfco 1994 Head Start: Criticisms in a Constructive Context.American Psychologist 49:127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hillard S. Kaplan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jane B. Lancaster
    • 1
  • Sara E. Johnson
    • 1
  • John A. Bock
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque
  2. 2.Australian National UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations