Content deleted Content added
Line 85:
From the point of view of [[evolutionary biology]], wealthier people having fewer children is unexpected, as [[natural selection]] would be expected to favor individuals who are willing and able to convert plentiful resources into plentiful fertile descendants. This may be the result of a departure from the [[Evolutionary psychology#Environment of evolutionary adaptedness|environment of evolutionary adaptedness]].<ref name=bbc_sure /><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Clarke | first1 = Alice L. | last2 = Low | first2 = Bobbi S. | year = 2001 | title = Testing evolutionary hypotheses with demographic data |journal = Population and Development Review | volume = 27 | issue = 4| pages = 633–660 | doi=10.1111/j.1728-4457.2001.00633.x| url = https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74296/1/j.1728-4457.2001.00633.x.pdf | hdl = 2027.42/74296| hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Daly |first1= Martin |last2=Wilson |first2=Margo I |title=Human evolutionary psychology and animal behaviour |journal= Animal Behaviour |url= http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/Daly%26Wilson-HEP-AB1999.pdf |publisher= Department of Psychology, McMaster University |access-date=14 November 2018 |date=26 June 1998|volume= 57 |issue= 3 |pages= 509–519 |doi= 10.1006/anbe.1998.1027 |pmid= 10196040 |s2cid= 4007382 }}</ref>
Most models posit that the birth rate will stabilize at a low level indefinitely. Some dissenting scholars note that the modern environment is exerting [[evolutionary pressure]] for higher fertility, and that eventually due to individual natural selection or cultural selection, birth rates may rise again. Part of the "cultural selection" hypothesis is that the variance in birth rate between cultures is significant; for example, some religious cultures have a higher birth rate that is not accounted for by differences in income.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kolk|first1=M.|last2= Cownden |first2=D.|last3=Enquist|first3=M. |title=Correlations in fertility across generations: can low fertility persist?|journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences|date=29 January 2014|volume=281|issue=1779|page = 20132561 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2013.2561|pmid= 24478294 |pmc=3924067}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Burger|first1=Oskar|last2= DeLong|first2=John P.|title= What if fertility decline is not permanent? The need for an evolutionarily informed approach to understanding low fertility|journal= Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences|date=28 March 2016|volume=371|issue=1692|page = 20150157|doi= 10.1098/rstb.2015.0157 |pmid= 27022084|pmc= 4822437}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title= Population paradox: Europe's time bomb |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/population-paradox-europes-time-bomb-888030.html |access-date=31 March 2019 |work=The Independent |date=9 August 2008}}</ref> In his book ''Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?'', [[Eric Kaufmann]] argues that demographic trends point to religious fundamentalists
[[Jane Falkingham]] of [[Southampton University]] has noted that "We've actually got population projections wrong consistently over the last 50 years... we've underestimated the improvements in mortality... but also we've not been very good at spotting the trends in fertility."<ref name= bbc_sure /> In 2004 a United Nations office published its guesses for global population in the year 2300; estimates ranged from a "low estimate" of 2.3 billion (tending to −0.32% per year) to a "high estimate" of 36.4 billion (tending to +0.54% per year), which were contrasted with a deliberately "unrealistic" illustrative "constant fertility" scenario of 134 trillion (obtained if 1995–2000 fertility rates stay constant into the far future).<ref name= bbc_sure /><ref>{{cite web|title= World Population to 2300|url= https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf |publisher=United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs |access-date= 24 May 2016|date= 2004}}</ref>
| |||