M.Harris:population, protein, infanticide

[Lisa Rogers <eqwq.lrogers@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Shawgi posted:
[snip]  Harris writes:
        The practical and mundane reason for the systematic
        killing and neglect of more female than male children
        can't be simply that the men force the women to do it.
        There are too many opportunities...to evade and circumvent
        the men's wishes in this matter.  Rather, the effective
        basis of Yanomamo women's nursery practices is their own
        interest in raising more boys than girls.  This interest
        is rooted in the fact that there are already too many
        Yanomamo in relation to their ability to exploit their
        habitat.  A higher ratio of men to women means more
        protein per capita (because men are the hunters) and a
        slower rate of population growth.  It also means more
        warfare, but for the Yanomamo, as for the Maring, warfare
        is the price paid for raising sons when they can't raise
        daughters.  (CPWW, 1974, p.104).
This quote makes fuller sense when read in complete context.

Lisa:  Thanks, Shawgi.  This is a great quote, as an example of
several of Harris' ideas that we have talked about onlist.  Here
Harris ties together his claim of food/protein shortage and his
hypothesis of infanticide as population control.  This quote also
implies that warfare is a result of having too many men around
[hmmmm] so he's not entirely opposed to Chagnon's point that Yanomamo
men are fighting over women.  But he's making that a sort of
side-effect of the allegedly primary factor in all this
behavior/culture: over-population.

(Is this emphasis the reason that somebody here called Harris a
neo-Malthusian?)

So, one part of the causal chain goes like this: over-population and
low male/female ratio causes less meat per woman, therefore women
kill some of their baby daughters in order to reduce population
growth and to increase the proportion of hunters, therefore women eat
better.  Side-effect is that there are a lot more men than women, so
men fight with each other [over the short supply of women.]

Well, if Harris were here I'd be more polite, and I'd ask him if he's
modified that position since 1974, but to be blunt, this is B.S., in
my not so humble opinion.

The first problem with this set of hypotheses is that there is no
evidence of sex-biased infanticide among the Yanomamo or any other
similar society.  It is well documented for some highly stratified
hierarchal societies, but not for horticultural/foragers.

Or rather, the only evidence is the biased sex-ratio among babies.
It is a puzzle why a sex ratio up to 125 [that is m/f x 100] is found
in peoples like the Yanomamo, when it's usually 105 in
mod.indust.West.  At one time, it was not only Harris, it was
generally assumed that sex-biased infanticide _must_ be responsible,
taking place before any anthropologist got to count babies.  Chagnon
refutes this for the Yanomamo, and last I heard nobody had been able
to confirm it anywhere.

[There is a much better hypothesis about why/when it might be
reproductively advantageous for parents to bias the sex-ratio of
offspring, but it is pretty technical.  It's related to the
difference in mortality rates between males and females, which
affects their average expected reproductive success.  In societies
such as the Yanomamo, men die off at a much higher rate than women.
The physiological mechanism is a complete mystery, but apparently
humans do have variable sex ratios at birth.]

Second, killing infants now doesn't affect the adult hunter/eater or
sex ratio until 15 years later!  If a woman really wanted more meat,
there have got to be quicker ways to go about it!  There is no reason
why women cannot hunt just as well as men with poison arrows and
small game.

Third, what about the collective action problem?  And free-riders?
If you kill your baby so there will be more food, then I get to eat
more too, plus feed my kids better, so why should I kill mine?  In
fact, if I and my kids all eat better, I can bear and raise even more
kids!  So, you all go'head, I'll keep mine alive.

Fourth, Yanomamo population was definitely growing before and during
Chagnon's work in the 70's.  His collection of geneologies and maps
of village histories of fission and movement are excellent evidence.

Fifth, there is no evidence that were "already too many Yanomamo in
relation to their ability to exploit their habitat."  Chagnon showed
that they were all plenty well-nourished, and working less than 40
hours per week [not including cooking and childcare].

Relevant to the claims of some Greenies, marxists and others, the
point is that all this stuff about "primitive peoples" regulating
their own population levels in order to be "in harmony" with the
environment and stay below "carrying capacity" is a load of nonsense.
 [No other species does it either.]  The "Ecologically Noble Savage"
is a myth.

Besides, if foragers actually had 'regulated' their populations, why
would populations ever have grown?  Don't forget that all our
ancestors were foragers.  If they were all so self-restraining, we
would _still_ be at prehistoric population densities.

Lisa



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------