Why we should go fourth and multiply

Not for love nor money. Some things you simply cannot get these days at any price, which is just as well. Happiness should never be bought or sold but simply enjoyed as it alights on one's shoulder. And that is the way it will always be.

Some things, however, which do not change clearly do not change to the general detriment of society. New Scientist reports, for example, that richer men in Britain are less frequently childless than poorer men:

Money can't buy love, but it seems to earn you more babies. Rich men sire more children than paupers, according to a new study of thousands of middle-aged British men.

Women are more likely to marry men who can provide for them and their children than penniless men, says Daniel Nettle, a behavioural scientist at Newcastle University, UK, who led the new study.

"It's not that if you're richer you'll have more children – if you're richer you're less likely to be childless," he says.

For much of civilization, females have tended to mate with better providers, but many sociologists argue that the industrial and sexual revolutions have immunised people in developed countries such evolutionary pressures.

Census surveys have suggested that wealthier men have fewer kids, says Rosemary Hopcroft, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte, who is not affiliated with the study.

The report goes on to point out the following:

With carefully collected figures on male and female income and fertility, Nettle and Pollet found that, for men, the more money they make, the more kids they sire on average. Men who earn £10,000 a year fathered one child on average, while fathers who pulled in £50,000-plus sired more than two kids.

But rich men didn't have larger families, rather they are more likely to find mates, Nettle says.

So despite the industrial revolution, gender equity, and birth control, rich and powerful men are more likely to pass on their genes than poorer and less powerful men.

"A deep aspect of the way human society works is that men with a lot of resources use their resources to achieve high reproductive success," says Nettle. "In a way, what we're saying in this paper is that a modern industrial society like Britain isn't so different."

American Express? That'll do nicely (it would seem).

More here.

So is this what Jon Cruddas means when he asks whether the future is Conservative? Fairness may be in our DNA, but is our DNA as well distributed - as widely shared - as we would like? I think we need an exhortation from on high, a public appeal from our leadership. Something along the lines of "go fourth and multiply" perhaps.

It's all becoming clear. Now I understand the thinking behind this new website and its associated Facebook group!
____________________

Further reading: more on the Go Fourth campaign