Captainlarab;

I do not wish to disagree with the points you have made, but let me just offer these quick rebuttles:

"Actually, let's approach this from the standpoint of "Why the poor have more kids," and it'll make more sense:

(1) When you're poor and you don't have adequate social security, you need children to take care of you in your old age;"

Although this is a common feeling, as to why the poor have more kids, it fails to consider the fact that a single child raised with the full attention of its adults has a higher chance at success and as such a higher chance to care for its aging parents than does a brood. The more children you have, the less investment you can make, and the less likely that you will foster a relationship that leads to care in your old age.

"(2) If you and your peers suffer from a high mortality rate, it behooves you to have more children to ensure that at least some of them will make it to adulthood (see item 1);"

This argument does fall in line with my original argument about the need to increase the odds that your child might reproduce, however I would point out that this one is not directly related to wealth. I don't know if populations increase or decrease in war zones where such a scenario is likely to play out across the board, though obviously other factors might influence the birth cycle in a war zone as well. Also having children die removes them from the population statistic and as such aren't counted as the poor haivng more children.

"(3) If you live in a culture in which women are worth much less than men economically (e.g., they're not allowed to work, you have to pay a dowry, etc.), you have to have enough children to make sure you at least have one or two boys;"

This issue has no bearing on wealth, if sons or daughters are less valued in a culture that is an effect that is likely to play out through all levels of society. Infact you would find an opposite trend, with the poor having fewer children than the rich, as unvaluable children die of neglect early on, while a rich parent will care for their daughters as they continue to try for sons.

"(4) If you don't have a high social status, having a lot of kids gives you something to brag about (it proves your virility, or shows off your superior parenting skills);"

Again I would see the opposite being the case, the more children you have the less individualized attention you can offer, and the less status you might gain for being a good parent. Although in individual cases this might be true, there I don't see an overall pattern forming. Likewise a wealthy person might seek similar status by having more kids, and would be more likely to gain this status due to their better ability to provide for thier children.

"(5) If you can't afford electricity, movies, nightclubs, or birth control, having unprotected sex may be your primary form of nighttime entertainment (aided by the fact that, regardless of income level, almost all human beings on earth are able to find themselves an affordable source of booze).

-- captainlarab "

That of course is the oldest argument for why the poor have more kids, however I think it is mostly one of "those poor people just don't have the self control we rich people do". Inexpensive and free methods of birth control exist in most places in the world, and most poor people are quite familiar with them. What you have is a desire to produce more children, or more specifically a desire not to prevent to aquisition of more children. The rich are just as likely to have sex, and will have more opportunities to do so (due to status) the precautions that the rich take, and have always took, begs for an explaination.

It is the natural state of animals to reproduce whenever and however they can, except in times when resources are scarce. Humans are the one exception seeking not to reproduce when resources are plentiful and seeking to reproduce when they are scarce. Why should this be? Is it a calculated plan or is it an unconcious evolutionary drive. The logical arguments never seem to hold water upon further inspection, which leads me back to the unconcious evolutionary drive. If children were a concious status or survival technique we would see their production regardless of wealth since the arguments for more children (generational security, social status, and fun) would often hold regardless of wealth, and infact would be made stronger with additional wealth to hlep pay for these kids.