Fertility Links, 2/6/2025
short men not wanted; Lyman Stone on the varieties of pro-natalism; Alice Evans on tradition; Arctotherium on marriage and fertility
Men have gotten taller and heavier at twice the rate of women over the past century, writes Ian Sample of the Guardian. The authors of a recent international study speculate that one driver of the trend is women’s preference for tall, formidable men as mates.
The study is here. It is remarkable that my genes survived. Of course, the preference of women for big men makes a bit less evolutionary sense now than it did in prehistoric times, but women don’t seem to have noticed.
three possible pronatal arguments:
Do it for the GDP and the pensions
Do it because fertility is below desires
Do it because it’s for the greater good of some group
It is an interesting essay. But I come away thinking that pro-natalism is not an “argument.” What we are arguing over is not whether you as a couple should try to have children.
We are arguing over how society ought to be organized. Should it be organized to encourage fertility, to discourage it, or to be indifferent?
I am in the “encourage fertility” camp, because I believe that when you reach old age, being a grandparent is satisfying, and having no grandchildren threatens you with loneliness and emptiness. And you cannot count on people in their twenties to appreciate this about their future selves.
For most of our history, religious rituals served as the bedrock of social cohesion. Families disciplined their children, safeguarding reputations among watchful neighbours. Stuck in their ways, village norms were taken for granted. Even those who were privately critical usually fell into line, for fear of ostracism. By policing ideas and behaviour, preachers and elders instilled local conformity.
If you look at religious rituals, you will see how humans have encouraged fertility. They bring the community together to celebrate marriage and childbirth. The decline in religious affiliation is not going to be reversed. But new, secular celebratory rituals would be good.
Also, young people are encouraged to marry and have children by being around other young people who are doing so. Another benefit of being around other young parents is that they provide support and children for your kids to play with. Hence we should try to create housing developments that start out with a requirement that a couple must have a young child in order to buy into the development. (That rule can only be maintained for a few years.)
The Baby Boom is so important because it occurred during a time of extremely rapid technological advancement, urbanization, rising incomes and education (for both men and women, though faster for men), and falling mortality. Every Western country near or below replacement in the 1930s was clearly above it by 1960.
With illegitimacy still in the single digits, the boom can be reduced to two things. More marriage (nuptiality) and higher marital fertility. In every Boom country except for France, the United States and Austria, higher nuptiality explains 85% or more of the Baby Boom.
What caused this dramatic rise in marriage? It turns out that it can be entirely explained by a sharp rise in young men’s relative wages and status, as compared to the young women they sought to marry.
…Within a span of six years, the United States (1973), France (1975), Germany (1970), Britain (1973), and the Nordics (1969) all went from being poised for a never-ending population explosion, of the sort that gave Paul Ehrlich nightmares, to our current path of population aging and demographic decline.
…The proximate cause of the second demographic transition is the enormous suite of changes that fall under the rubric of second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution.
I am motivated to link to the essay by the data that you will find there. I am still not persuaded to put has much weight on feminism as he does.
substacks referenced above: @
@
@
"What caused this dramatic rise in marriage? It turns out that it can be entirely explained by a sharp rise in young men’s relative wages and status,"
This is wrong. The baby boom happened even (specially?) in countries under occupation during World War II: France, the Netherlands, Norway. The idea that men looked good on uniforms and so girls wanted to marry them and have babies (if that's what's being implied. Is it?) is not supported by the data.
The cited paper says: "The baby boom after the Second World War". Which is wrong. The baby boom started several years before the end of WW2.
https://www.mangosorbananas.com/p/the-american-baby-boom-and-what-it
> Men have gotten taller and heavier at twice the rate of women over the past century
The way our genes (nature) express is heavily influenced by our environment (nurture). If you take a guy who's genetically predisposed to be 6' and 250lbs and a guy who's predisposed to be 5'6" and 130lbs and feed them an ideal diet, they probably both reach their potential. My somewhat informed guess, however, is that if both are malnourished, the 6'/250lb guy loses a lot more of his potential size than the 5'6"/130lb guy.
Being able to reach a genetically stable and sustainable size might actually be a very effective genetic survival strategy. Under harsh conditions, it's easier for the smaller person.