Avarice versus Greed

Posted on May 9, 2025 by Aya Katz

by Aya Katz

Bosch’s The Seven Deadly Sins

Image Credit: The Wikipedia
Image Credit: The Wikipedia

Avarice and greed are often used as interchangeable synonyms, with greed having the higher frequency of use and avarice appearing only rarely. However, if you look at the finer distinctions in their connotations and their etymology, you will find that they describe completely different mindsets.

Now, you won’t find this distinction explained in most dictionaries, and you can forget about getting the Catholic Church to recognize the difference between the two. In fact, maybe I am the only one who makes this distinction. So bear with me while I explain.

To me, avarice is a word that means “miserliness”. If you are avaricious, you behave a little like Harpagon in Moliere’s L’Avare. You just can’t bear to be parted from your money. Avaricious people refuse to consume, even when they could and possibly should. They are like anorexics who have a refrigerator full of food, but refuse to eat.

Greed, on the other hand, is a close sister to gluttony. People who are greedy try to get money because they are addicted to spending money. Sometimes they even try to get it unfairly.

By my defintion, avarice is a very strong desire to hold on to what is already yours, even to the point of living in a state resembling poverty when you have plenty of money saved away. Greed refers to the extremely strong desire to acquire more, even to the point of taking it unlawfully from others.

In the current financial crisis, those who have savings, if they insist on holding onto what they have and maintaining its value, might be labeled avaricious by those who oppose this policy. We have been encouraged to spend money for the sake of the economy. People who have money but don’t spend it are setting themselves up for an accusation of avarice.

On the other side of the same coin, those who haven’t got any money, because they spent it all, and are now asking for government sponsored handouts, are open to an accusation of greed.

Now I know that many people believe that moderation in all things is the best path. One should be neither an anorexic nor a glutton for optimal health. But if you had to choose, which is your vice? Avarice or Greed?

And here’s an even more interesting question. Which is best for the country as a whole? Avarice or Greed? While you are pondering that, ask yourself this: which vice is best for Planet Earth? Avarice or Greed?

The Entire Text of the play by Moliere

Avarice — a grievous but not a mortal sin

Greed

Where I got the definition of Avarice

Where, you may ask, did I come up with this completely idiosyncratic definition of avarice? Well, when I first started writing this hub, I thought my definition was the standard one. That’s what I understood avarice to mean. The difference between avarice and greed was obvious to me. Then I started looking it up and found that none of the dictionaries supported my view of the matter. Finally, in despair I tried my old Petit Larousse. Here’s what it said:

AVARICE [avaris] n.f. (lat. avaritia). Attachement excessif aux richesses.

“Excessive attachment to wealth.” Not desire to get more wealth, but the unwillingness to part with what you’ve got. See, I didn’t make that up. I just had the wrong language.

Anyway, I think avarice sounds so much better than miserliness. So bear with me. Etymologically, at least, I’m right.

Motivations for Avarice and Greed

People’s choice of avarice or greed is never made in a vacuum. It may depend on the history of their lives or the society they live in. It may also depend on their most basic inclinations, talents and pleasures.

200 Best Places Ever to Have Sex

july-4th-crafts-for-kids

Some people enjoy productive work, not because they expect to be paid for it, but because they feel a compulsion to engage in it. They may be gardeners or painters or people who are very much into animal husbandry. They could be writers or pilots, singers, composers or craftsmen.They could be scientists or seamstresses. They could be auto mechanics or baseball players, horsemen or fishermen. Whatever their area of interest in life, what they chiefly need and want is time. Time to do their own thing. For these people, money equals time. The less they spend, the more time they can milk out of every dollar so that they won’t be forced to do something they don’t like to do.

Now occasionally one of these people actually gets a job where he or she is paid to do what they like. However, often conflicts with the employer crop up concerning how the work is to be done. Employers who try to motivate this type of employee only by means of a salary find that they don’t get the results they want. Because of this, many employers prefer workers who are motivated primarily by greed.

To someone with a vocation, true pleasure comes from the work, and working for anything but pleasure is experienced as pain. Because of this, such people try to live frugally, and their vice of choice is avarice.

On the other hand, there are people who don’t have a favorite line of work and for whom work is chiefly a way to get money. For them, the joy in money is the ability to spend it. No sooner is it spent than they need more money. It’s a never ending cycle, and some people call it the business cycle.

For a very long time now, our economy has been fueled by greed, and avarice has been frowned upon.

If you haven’t guessed till now, I’ll confess: my vice of choice is avarice.

Coexistence and Cooperation between Avarice and Greed

Both avarice and greed can be effective motivators. In a free economy people motivated primarily by greed can exist side by side with people motivated primarily by avarice and everybody can be happy. Some people will simply do whatever pays the most, and their choice of occupation will be determined by supply and demand. Some people will insist on doing everything their own way, and they will be willing to live more frugally, when doing things their own way is not in high demand.

Yes, occasionally some of these self-motivated people will hit the jackpot and find that what they like to do is suddenly in demand, and then they can be well compensated. Occasionally, when things are not going so well, even the people who are willing to do anything for a buck will find that their earnings aren’t so high. The ratio of people motivated by avarice to people motivated by greed will fluctuate, and these fluctuations will create ripples in the marketplace

In an economy that is not entirely free, the market can be skewed in the direction of either avarice or greed by means of government intervention. In the United States, the following measures have been put into effect to give greed the upper hand over avarice:

Government Sponsored Measures to Promote Greed and Discourage Avarice

  1. Corporations were granted limited liability so that large business entities could control large amounts of capital without being responsible for damage caused to others. This encouraged investment and discouraged savings.
  2. Money was not allowed to be indexed against anything of permanent value, like gold or silver.
  3. Wages were given a minimum below which they were not allowed to drop.
  4. Employers therefore had to pass the extra outlay onto consumers, because they couldn’t act like Harpagon and try to pay their employees less.
  5. Because consumer prices went higher, other employees, who earned above the minimum wage to begin with, began to bargain for higher wages to compensate themselves for what they lost in purchasing power.
  6. Every time an employer had to pay any employee more, this was again passed to the consumer, and again the consumer, who was an employee himself, asked for more money. This created an endless cycle of inflation.
  7. Lenders were prohibited from charging a high enough interest rate for money so as to keep up with this inflation.
  8. People depositing money in the bank lost value, so it seemed that the only way to maintain value was to invest in something else.
  9. People invested in stocks, real estate, and other specualtive ventures in the hopes of not losing their savings.
  10. Taxes, at the local, state and Federal levels kept going up, but as long as people kept trying to make more money, there was some hope for them to make up the difference.
  11. People worked longer and longer hours in order to earn money that was worth less and less.
  12. Because people who were motivated by the love of their work could not be bought, they were not promoted, and less and less was produced by the companies who employed all these wage-earners who were working only for money.

Alternative Scenarios

What would the alternative have looked like? What would a country that promoted avarice be like? More people would be independent. They could be, because no matter how poor they were when they were born, they could save money from their earnings to buy themselves freedom from wage slavery. Fewer houses would be built, because people would not have access to easy credit, but more older houses would be refurbished. Fewer trees would be cut down. Fewer forests would be denuded.

There would be less business, but what business there was would be sound. People would buy things only after serious deliberation. They would make quality products that lasted a long time, and these products would be costly, but they would be worth it. If you couldn’t afford to buy something made by someone else, you could always make it yourself. There would be less mass production, and people would make less money, but the money would be worth more and its value would be stable. People could afford to build up a nest egg for retirement.

What makes a Person Prefer Greed or Avarice

Are greedy people and avaricious people born that way? Can they change? Can they be motivated to alter their behavior? You bet. We are not all equally set in our ways. We have conflicting motivations, and we can be induced to take a different road when presented with a different set of circumstances. Many people who are motivated by greed today have chosen this path, because, given the government interventions that I listed before, avarice didn’t pay and greed did.

Anytime someone proposes a measure to “stimulate the economy”, what is really involved is setting things up so that not spending money doesn’t pay. More and more people are induced to adopt the lifestyle of greed and to give up avarice.

What is the lifestyle of greed? It means working for a living all the time and trying to spend as much money as possible. For some people this is easy, because they can’t imagine not having a job. In fact, if they don’t have a job, they can’t find enough things to do. They get bored. They need someone to fill their days with activity and fill their bank account with money they can spend till the next paycheck. These people are happier when they are in debt. They feel strangely out of sorts if they’re not. For them debt is not a terrible burden, but rather a way to find meaning and purpose in life.

Others really suffer when they are forced to live in an economy that promotes greed, because their avarice is so ingrained that they can’t change to help themselves. They can see that things will work better for them if they just go with the flow, but they can’t.

Unfortunately, people are trapped by the majority in whatever system seems to please the most people. We can’t all be happy all the time, and this is the era of greed. It’s all just a matter of preference, right?

Well, not completely. There is one other important factor that needs to be considered: depletable resources.

The Economy and the Environment

Like all other animals, man has a habitat. We live in the real world on a planet of finite proportions. This planet is full of valuable resources, many of which are renewable if properly managed, but some of which are depletable and, once consumed, will not be replenished.

What are some of the depletable resources? Coal, petroleum, natural gas. Gold and silver. Can you think of anything else? How about land?

Any economy is based on two things: (1) natural resources and (2) human effort and ingenuity. An economy that promotes avarice will conserve natural resources and encourage human effort and human creativity. An economy that promotes greed is going to grind on until it consumes all the depletable resources, and then it will have to stop.

So the bottom line is: greed is not sustainable as a primary motivation for an entire society. Avarice is.

Or, to be less dramatic, one might say this: avarice is an important ingredient in any functional economy.

The Solution: A Balance Created by the Marketplace

I don’t actually believe that all people can be divided into two categories, nor do I believe that avarice is always best and that greed is never good. I intentionally used the names of two vices, rather than the name of a virtue and the name of vice. I could have said it was thrift versus greed, for instance, but that would have made it seem that one motivation is always good and the other is always bad. I don’t believe that. It takes all kinds to make a world, and greed wouldn’t exist if it didn’t serve a useful purpose.

If it weren’t for greed, we couldn’t get anybody to do any work that is not creative. We would have all chiefs and no indians. It’s good that some people are willing to do what other people ask them to do in return for money. It’s also good that there are other people who will not do anything for money, unless they think it is right. It takes both kinds to make an economy run.

So the fact of the matter is that we’re not dealing with two vices here: both greed and avarice are virtues. In a free economy, they would balance out naturally, and things would not get out of hand.

Money would maintain its value and some work would always get done, but we would not all feel we had to work all the time until we used up all our resources.

It’s not us versus them. It’s us versus us. If we could just stop for a minute and realize that, we could bring everything into balance.

ere.

Comments

ledefensetech from Cape Girardeau, MO on June 27, 2012:

I think it was the edition of Webster’s Dictionary published in the 1960’s that really began our slide away from words having a concrete definition and the language becoming more fluid. I think it was Lenin who said something like “If you wish a revolution to succeed, first confuse the language”. It’s the same idea behind newspeak that Orwell talked about. You see evidence of it every day on the forums. Sad really.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on June 27, 2012:

I think it’s important, in order to win the battle of ideas, to ignore connotations and to pay very close attention to the denotation of words. We could go on and on with arguments like “I’m not stingy — I’m thrifty!” where both words denote exactly the same thing only the first has a bad connotation and the second a good one. No information is being transmitted there, except “think well of me — not badly.” If we cede words like avarice and greed to the enemy and say: “I’m not greedy, I’m hardworking” or “I’m not avaricious — I’m self-interested” then there will be no real communication between ideological camps about what is at stake. It’s better to say: “Yes, I am greedy, and greed is good.” Or “Yes, I am a miser, and miserliness is a virtue.”

That way, at least we’re talking about the same thing and challenging their ideas. It’s for this very reason that Ayn Rand spoke of the “Virtue of Selfishness.” She could have denied being selfish, knowing it was considered a bad word. Instead, she focused on the denotation and worked logically to dispel the connotation.

ledefensetech from Cape Girardeau, MO on June 26, 2012:

Most of the cost of WW II was paid for in bonds. We actually didn’t incur that much debt from WW II. Unlike, say, Vietnam which was funded by increasing the monetary supply because nobody would have bought bonds to finance that war. It’s not really worth looking at the economics of the homefront because there were really no consumer goods because every manufacturer was building for the war effort not consumption by individuals. So while people were being paid in dollars for their labor, they couldn’t use those dollars on the homefront, they had to use ration tickets. So people saved those dollars and were able to use them to invest in new business after the war. This didn’t happen prior to the war because the government basically confiscated savings through taxation and eliminated purchasing power by inflation which they used to pay for useless New Deal programs.

My point about avarice and greed is that they are very subjective terms. Many people use avarice and greed to describe people who don’t follow any sort of collectivist ideology. People who don’t follow a collectivist ideology are, generally speaking, self-interested not greedy or avaricious.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on June 26, 2012:

Ledefenstech, I’m not sure I understand your point about avarice. Mine was that neither avarice nor greed are vices, and that both contribute to a healthy economy. Calling those who save “avaricious” and allowing that to have a bad connotation is just as bad as calling those who earn “greedy”. The degree to which each of us is governed by avarice or greed depends in large measure on our personality type, though the current economic situation can affect it.

Are you saying that we got through WWII without incurring a large national debt for the expenses of the war? Or that enforced savings at home offset the expenditures abroad?

ledefensetech from Cape Girardeau, MO on June 26, 2012:

Like a lot of people you seem to confuse avarice with self-interest. One of the things that Keynesian economics does is penalize savers and force people to spend. They look at things like the “velocity” of spending as if they’ve created some sort of perpetual motion machine that can ensure full employment and endless prosperity.

The horrible thing about the whole system is that only savings and investment can save us from the boom/bust cycle. The end of World War II is the great example of this. Due to either fighting in the war or facing rationing at home, people were unable to spend money. So there was an enforced savings on the population due to the War. As the War was winding down, the acolytes of Keynes began prophesying doom and destruction with a return to the Great Depression.

What happened instead was the greatest boom in the history of the world. One that lasted until the late 1960’s. It was the war spending of the Kennedy/Johnson administrations as well as the insane monetary policy of Nixon that ended that and ushered in the age of stagflation; something incidentally that Keynesian economists were sure could never happen. It was only the tax relief that Reagan pushed through that saved us from that. Even then the revolution was only half won, spending didn’t decrease, it increased and has almost destroyed us.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on June 26, 2012:

Thanks, Katie! I’m glad you found this hub thought provoking.

katiem2 on June 26, 2012:

Very interesting read. You have me rethinking the tossing about of the word greed. Thanks for the powerful food for thought. I’m so happy not to suffer from either Greed or Avarice. 🙂 katiem2

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on April 30, 2012:

Martyn, thanks for your comment.

If the money that your acquaintance is hoarding is kept in fraud of creditors, then there should be legal recourse to force payment of just debts. A judgment can be obtained by creditors, and the accounts can be levied upon. That’s just legal advice.

I don’t feel competent to give psychological advice, though. If you are a friend of this person, and if speaking directly about the problem does not help, then it may be that they are incompetent to handle their own financial affairs and need a guardian. (Again, a legal suggestion.)

For ideas on how to deal with the underlying mental problem, you may want to consult a mental health professional.

Martyn on April 30, 2012:

This article is very well written and extremely interesting. On a more personal note I was wondering if you could give any guidance or information as someone I know seems to. E suffering Averice with Greed as an illness. They deny they have savings, choosing not to pay bills and to stress over finances even though in truth they are wealthy and have plenty of savings. This person has even started to deceive and commit fraud to get yet more money. However they don’t spend it, instead hoarding it in over 20 bank accounts and hiding its existence from everyone. It to me is an illness and I don’t know how to help them. Any advice?

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on April 25, 2011:

Lobonorth, neither avarice nor greed have to take a criminal turn. In a free market, those who are avaricious and those who are greedy can live side by side and act as good neighbors. But the distinction is nevertheless real, and understanding it helps to understand the way the economy has been manipulated.

lobonorth on April 24, 2011:

At one point you acquaint avarice with frugality – generally frugality was regarded as a virtue before the current era when we’ve been encouraged to believe that there is an equation between happiness and the things and the amount we buy.

But the distinction you make between the two terms does need to be made. I have known people who were avaricious but they were known for driving a hard bargain and then tightly hanging onto their earnings or profits. Little in their lifestyle suggested the wealth I assume they held and enjoyed by not spending it.

Greed, as you point out, has been encouraged by our culture and economic system. It suggests owning or consuming a large amount more than is necessary or needed. It may be good for modern economies but is not a good recipe for the survival of our own or most other species. Often acts of greed are legal and encouraged although they bring harm to the purchaser, the purchaser’s culture and the planet as a whole. Avarice may but does not necessarily have the same consequences.

For most of the post war years, Americans was told that what was good for GM was good for them. It seems remarkable that we haven’t woken up to the fact that the system was broken when GM had to be bailed out.

The matter of criminality is not necessarily connected to either greed or avarice. However, as is repeatedly pointed out, very few of those who have looted billions from taxpayers are regarded as criminals. On the contrary, many who have benefited quite immorally from public money continue enjoying the benefits of their greed.

Debby Bruck on February 22, 2011:

exactly. just some confirmation.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on February 21, 2011:

Thanks, Debby! I followed the link you provided, and I think your understanding of avarice is much like mine.

Debby Bruck on February 21, 2011:

Wonderful Hub, Aya. We also have these rubrics in the repertory and like to understand the expressions of avarice and greed in individuals who have illness. You can see a discussion about it here. http://ning.it/ht5Xxe Congratulations on your Hub Awards and reaching milestones! Blessings, Debby

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on November 12, 2010:

Jeremey, thanks! I need all the encouragement I can get!

Jeremey from Arizona on November 12, 2010:

Each hub of yours I read is better than last. You have a brilliance about you I wish to steal!lol!Please go to my hubs and explain to me what I am trying to say!lol!

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on September 18, 2010:

Mandatory Retirement, thanks for your comment. I’m glad that you agree that we need both avarice and greed. Sure, many young people don’t think about retirement, and many retired people who were prudent in their youth lament that they did not allow themselves a little more recklessness and enjoyment of life before thinking of providing a nest egg for themselves. There is a time to sow and a time to reap. One can be too reckless, and end up improvident. One can be too careful, and miss enjoying life. Finding the balance — the right balance for each individual — is a matter of making wise choices.

However, the very existence of things like social security can tip the balance toward improvidence. The psychological effect of having a safety net is to make us behave less prudently. When we are forced to pay for other people’s safety net, the situation is even worse.

mandatory retirement on September 18, 2010:

Yes, we need both. HOWEVER, most young people don’t think about retirement. And retired people sometimes lament their youth. A great many people look for a solution when they’re in the thick of a problem. A few years before retirement is not the time to find out how much you’ll need to live in retirement and how much social security you’ll be getting. Some planning earlier in life will make all the difference in retirement.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on June 07, 2010:

Ghost, you may be right. Avarice and Greed are both good. Whether you spend your whole wad on luxuries or pinch pennies to save a nest egg, it’s all good as long as you are making the decisions about what to do with your money and not someone else.

ghost of future past on June 07, 2010:

You’re splitting hairs.

Whatever floats your boat.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on May 25, 2010:

Deborah Demander, thanks! It’s always great to hear from someone who understands the distinction between avarice and greed and sees that both can play a positive part in creating a balanced world.

I was going to reply to your namaste in devanagari, but Hubpages blanked out the characters.

Deborah Demander from I am Everywhere I Want to Be! on May 25, 2010:

This is a well written hub, and I particularly appreciate your last line, it’s not us versus them, it is us versus us.

That is the most accurate thing I have read in a while.

I like your definition of avarice, and I appreciate the differentiation you make. Thank you for writing this.

Namaste.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on January 08, 2010:

Wannabewestern, thanks! I actually prefer to focus on the individual with the understanding that every community is made of individuals, and each of us makes a contribution, whether we realize it or not. My point is that greedy people work hard, and that this hard work usually benefits the community in some way. Why? Because greedy people only do work that others are willing to pay for — so they must be doing something that helps others. On the other hand, avaricious people save for a rainy day and their self-restraint ultimately also benefits the community. Without enough avarice, greed can’t work!

We don’t always have to know exactly what each of us is contributing to our community nor do we have to judge our neighbors on their choices. If left alone, I believe that most communities balance themselves.

Carolyn Augustine from Tractor Town, Iowa on January 08, 2010:

This hub is full of interesting food for thought. I think your definition of avarice suggests a focus on self-preservation without contributing to a greater good. The problem with the concept of avarice or greed is that it puts focus on the individual without concern for the needs of the community. There is nothing wrong with working toward a self-sustaining life, if it doesn’t strip others of their opportunities to succeed as well.

I enjoy reading your articles. They are intelligent and interesting. I love your etymological explorations.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on January 02, 2010:

Tonymac04, thanks for your heartfelt comment. A lot of people talk about the need for balance, lest consumption of natural resources outstrip what is available. But “balance” implies an equilibrium between countervailing forces. What are the forces that need to be balanced? In my opinion, it’s avarice versus greed. The desire to keep what you have and not risk anything (avarice) is normally balanced against the desire to get more things (greed). But when spending is rewarded and encouraged, and all debts are forgiven, there is no balance between avarice and greed. It’s all greed and no avarice and in the end everybody loses!

Tony McGregor from South Africa on January 02, 2010:

Sorry, maybe I’m just a simpleton, but how does one square all this high-flying nit-picking jargon-mongering with the fact that millions go to bed hungry every night, millions die of hunger, millions are brain-washed into violent acts for which the justification is either perceived injustice or, for lack of a better word, empire-building? And all this while some live lives of conspicuous, I would say, obscene, spending on luxury.

There is something incredibly wrong when the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer, not through their own fault. Sorry, but I don’t get it.

This Hub is impressive in its fine talk about the difference between greed and avarice, and clever reasons why one might be better than the other.

The reality is that people die, are killed, in fact, by greed or avarice or whatever you want to call it. I’m not sure if life is a zero-sum game, though I rather suspect it is. Resources are not unlimited. There is evidence that co-operation is advantageous in situations of limits. However nicely you define greed or avarice, or the distinction between the two, the effects on the vast majority of people in the world, not to mention the environment, are negative. And have a negative inlfuence on people’s freedom.

But maybe I’m just a naïve romantic, being concerned with human rights and all, and the environment. But there it is, I’m not convinced by your arguments. I still prefer to talk about human rights. I still would like to see an end of poverty and hunger and children dying for lack of food or shelter. And what seems to keep the situation the way it is, is the untrammelled pursuit of wealth. Because it seems to me there is only so much to go around.

So thanks for the informative Hub, but I have to say I’m still unconvinced.

Love and peace

Tony

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on January 02, 2010:

Sarah Dawkins, thanks! I’m glad that Google has got this hub well indexed under avarice. Hope this helps.

sarah dawkins on January 02, 2010:

Hi

I just went to google to look up avarice and came across your hub. Very informative, thanks x

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on May 03, 2009:

Livelonger, we are agreed on this. It’s not a zero sum game.

Jason Menayan from San Francisco on May 03, 2009:

I completely agree that wealth, earning and profit are considered dirty words by many, because value creation is poorly understood. But there are also many exalted people who’ve made millions on the backs of others and without creating value, so there are opportunities for the corruption of words on both sides.

But yes, I agree completely that value creation is the key to understanding why the creation and accumulation of wealth is not a zero-sum game. Wealth is not a finite resource.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on May 01, 2009:

Livelonger, we are not that far off in our personal judgments, and when it comes to what degree of thrift becomes pathological or what degree of ambition to earn or acquire is too much, I agree it is in the realm of the personal.

Where we differ is that my mission here is to go further than that. To conflate avarice and greed in many instances leads people to argue that ‘the rich’ are rich at the expense of the ‘poor’, equating every attempt to acquire, and every attempt to hold on to what is acquired, as somehow being part of a zero sum game where all wealth is ill-gotten. Under this scenario not earning and not saving both become somehow virtuous.

The balance that I mention would be between two competing natural impulses that are currently being treated as one and the same impulse — and a vice at that.

Jason Menayan from San Francisco on May 01, 2009:

I’m certainly all for getting away from dogmatic definitions set forth by the likes of the Catholic church. And actually I don’t think trying to maximize your earnings by itself is wrong (although some may differ). I think greed and miserliness both have connotations of selfishness; whether this is the Catholics’ doing or not, I don’t know.

Greed connotes amassing wealth at the expense of others–taking more than your fair share of a limited resource–while industriousness can certainly lead someone to have the same wealth, but without the sense that something is being taken from someone else.

It’s the same with thrift and miserliness; you can be thrifty but use the money you save not only for yourself, while miserliness implies that you’ll save money to the detriment of even your loved ones.

Now where people draw the line between greed & industriousness, and thrift & miserliness, is completely personal, but that’s what happens with these subjective types of terms, right? Personally, when I see a multimillionaire televangelist asking pensioners to send him money to get into heaven, I think greed, not industriousness. Likewise, when Hetty Green had her son’s leg amputated instead of paying for proper medical care, when she clearly had the money, I think miser, not thrifty.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on May 01, 2009:

Livelonger, I know it may seem counterproductive to go against the dictionaries, but I actually feel that I have a good reason to do so. Sometimes the connotations that words have are derived from the value system that is prevalent in society. Then a particular denotation gets stuck in the good bin or the bad bin. This makes it really hard to talk about things more objectively, and outside the value system of the society.

Most people agree that thrift is good and miserliness is bad. They don’t  notice that they’re the same, only the connotation is different. Most people agree that being industrious and working for a living is good, but that greed is bad. They don’t notice that these are essentially the same things, only one of them has a bad connotation.

Until we break out of that cultural trap, we’ll be stuck with the same values that the Catholic Church is pushing when it gives the same definition for both avarice and greed.

To break out of a value system and see beyond it, we sometimes need to redefine old words more precisely, disregarding their connotations.

Jason Menayan from San Francisco on April 30, 2009:

Interesting hub, although I agree with most of the dictionaries you consulted: avarice is synonymous with greed.

If you want to talk about miserliness/thrift vs avarice/greed, however…

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on April 24, 2009:

Shibashake, thanks for your comment.

Maybe we should be willing to accept some booms and some busts in our pursuit of natural balance. If the booms and busts are a normal part of the way people behave in the marketplace– and not something contrived by special interests — then maybe the best thing to do is to let them play out.

The natural booms and busts may be mild compared to the contrived ones, however hard it may be to go through one of those busts, when it happens.

Mark Armstrong on April 24, 2009:

You bring up many good points. Japan’s economy is more “avarice” based, and ultimately, it did not bring good results either. So as you and many others have said, in all things, balance is needed.

The devil of course, is always in the details. How do we achieve this balance and how do we sustain it? Free markets *do* automatically balance for these opposing forces, but they do not necessarily project a smooth trajectory. If we were to leave everything free, we would probably get ourselves into a never-ending cycle of boom and busts. To smoothen things out, some controls are needed.

Then, the issue is what controls, and who controls, and all that muck; and that is when I try to leave the room 🙂

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on April 04, 2009:

Raven, thanks for your comment! Yes, in its most extreme form, avarice is pitiable. But there is a balance, and a society that is balanced is best achieved by allowing avarice and greed to motivate different people to different extents. Another, alternative motivation is that of a true vocation, where we are productive not because we hunger for the fruits of our labor, but because we enjoy the process.

Raven King from Cabin Fever on April 04, 2009:

This hub blew me away it is a force of nature. I think avarice is tragic in that you hear about people who lived like miserable beggars even though they had a lot of money. I think avarice holds people back from taking a chance toward happiness or a chance that leads to a more fulling life.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 30, 2009:

Sophieqd, thanks for your comment.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 29, 2009:

Hot Dorkage, thanks for stopping by.

None of the problems associated with wealth would exist if not for the possibility of creating a surplus. Neither greed nor avarice would be at issue if we couldn’t keep for tomorrow what we had hunted and gathered today. Agriculture created this problem. Hunter-gatherers do not suffer from it.

I have a hub called “Bread: The First Fast Food” that explains, in realistic terms, how the discovery of agriculture led to social stratification, and that the story of the garden of Eden and fall from grace was all about the invention of bread.

I long for that simpler life myself, and I see it in the lives of chimps in the wild. But… since we do have agriculture and industry, we need to allow greed and avarice to be kept in balance. Risk aversion is a good thing, and it helps us to keep from using up all our natural resources. It helps to keep greed in check.

hot dorkage from Oregon, USA on March 29, 2009:

Aya Girl, you sure do get the comments. Eamonn de Valera had in mind an ideal agrarian society for Ireland where everyone lived “light” and was able to buy what they need but not get involved with excessive greed. I don’t like miserliness as you define “avarice”, because those people who keep their money in a sock are not contributing much to the economy or society. Not only do they not spend their money in the local economy, but they spend inordinate amounts of energy figuring out how to avoid doing so and as such avoid getting involved. However, the “buy buy buy because it’s patriotic” that has been the USA mantra for most of our lives has played out. Not only is it not sustainable ecologically, but it’s not sustainable economically. Personally I really like de Valera’s Utopian ideal but it would require a major cultural upheaval to achieve it. People today all over the world just don’t have those values, except in a few remote and economically insignificant places.

And I beg to differ with your statement that the Catholic church is no help. Sure if you read the popular twaddle it’s pretty brain dead. I just had a long chat with my spiritual advisor because I was upset at such things and he told me to ignore the stuff that’s written by people who are so steeped in the acquisition mentality that they can’t see clear to write dispassionately about such matters. But reading the fathers of the Church, Augustine, Francisco de Assissi and others will give you a pretty good idea of the context in which the people of that day regarded avarice, and you’re right there is a subtle distinction, which is why avarice is themore general term than greed but for most purposes either will suffice and they are interchangeable when it comes to sin because either one reflects an attitude that causes sins against the virtue of generosity. It is a very fine distinction that you are making.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Correction: In 2) change “many not” to “may not”. ;->

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Issues Veritas, I want to return the governmental form to that of a Republic! In a republic, not everything is open to government intervention. There are some ground rules that everyone agrees to, which are not negotiable. I think the following would be reasonable ground rules:

1) Money issued by the government will be indexed to gold

2) the government many not legislate about or regulate interest rates, wages, the price of goods, or any other contractual term between consenting adults.

3) The government will not grant to groups of people collectively rights that they do not have individually. (This applies to corporations and many other artificially created entities.)

4) The government may not seize the property of one person and grant it to another, except in fulfillment of contractual obligation or to compensate for a tort commited by the one against the other.

These four ground rules cover the (12) matters that I discussed above which gave greed the upper hand.

Greed would still be okay — and it would be a good motivator — but no person could hope to acquire anything at the expense of another without the other person’s consent. This would allow a balance between greed and avarice.

issues veritas on March 28, 2009:

Aya

Issues Veritas, the government could indeed go bankrupt, if the dollar were indexed to the gold standard.

Aya: But the dollar is not inexed to gold or anything else

The government could not get too big, if it couldn’t keep raising taxes.

Aya: Nothing you have suggested, would stop the government from raising taxes.

The government could not devalue the dollar, if it didn’t engage in all the practices that I mentioned. Every wrong you see could be remedied this way.

Aya: Your 12 points don’t hit on the government. For example, the minimum wage is not the real problem. The reeal problem is giving welfare and aid to those that don’t make the minimum wage. Your other 11 points also don’t point to a solution on the government issue. Now, implementing it — that’s a whole different question. In order to implement it, we would have to get the majority to agree that it’s a good idea. But that’s true of your suggested reforms, too. My reforms, if implemented, would make your reforms unnecessary. But your reforms would not touch the heart of the problem. They’re like thinking that limiting the presidency to two terms will combat tyranny. It does no good to tell people or entities that they are too big and they should be cut down to size. What works better is to create a situation where it pays for everyone to rise to the occasion and find the best within them

Aya, there is no such situation for the government.

Aya, I guess we are still on different wave lengths. I want to modify the government and keep the spirit of the founding fathers but I get the impression that you want to change the government type to something other than a Republic..

I have written a hub on one part of what I think is the problem with government.

I know that you will disagree with it but it is at

issues veritas on March 28, 2009:

Aya

Issues Veritas, the government could indeed go bankrupt, if the dollar were indexed to the gold standard.

Aya: But the dollar is not indexed to gold or anything else

The government could not get too big, if it couldn’t keep raising taxes.

Aya: Nothing you have suggested, would stop the government from raising taxes.

The government could not devalue the dollar, if it didn’t engage in all the practices that I mentioned. Every wrong you see could be remedied this way.

Aya: Your 12 points don’t hit on the government. For example, the minimum wage is not the real problem. The real problem is giving welfare and aid to those that don’t make the minimum wage. Your other 11 points also don’t point to a solution on the government issue. Now, implementing it — that’s a whole different question. In order to implement it, we would have to get the majority to agree that it’s a good idea. But that’s true of your suggested reforms, too. My reforms, if implemented, would make your reforms unnecessary. But your reforms would not touch the heart of the problem. They’re like thinking that limiting the presidency to two terms will combat tyranny. It does no good to tell people or entities that they are too big and they should be cut down to size. What works better is to create a situation where it pays for everyone to rise to the occasion and find the best within them

Aya, there is no such situation for the government.

Aya, I guess we are still on different wave lengths. I want to modify the government and keep the spirit of the founding fathers but I get the impression that you want to change the government type to something other than a Republic..

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Gin Dalloway, thanks for your comment. I certainly mean these terms in the widest possible philosophical sense. ;->

Gin Delloway on March 28, 2009:

nice hub… I think that people can argue about sins and virtue for ages… It’s a very philosophic theme…

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Issues Veritas, the government could indeed go bankrupt, if the dollar were indexed to the gold standard. The government could not get too big, if it couldn’t keep raising taxes. The government could not devalue the dollar, if it didn’t engage in all the practices that I mentioned. Every wrong you see could be remedied this way.

Now, implementing it — that’s a whole different question. In order to implement it, we would have to get the majority to agree that it’s a good idea. But that’s true of your suggested reforms, too. My reforms, if implemented, would make your reforms unnecessary. But your reforms would not touch the heart of the problem.

They’re like thinking that limiting the presidency to two terms will combat tyranny.

It does no good to tell people or entities that they are too big and they should be cut down to size. What works better is to create a situation where it pays for everyone to rise to the occasion and find the best within them.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Shalini, yes! That would be true freedom!

issues veritas on March 28, 2009:

Aya,

Your comment “My point was that we need to get rid of all the government interventions that I listed, so my hub does suggest fixing the government.”

I really didn’t see anything in this hub that fixes the government problems that I am concerned with. The government is too large and too costly and it is ineffective in benefiting the people. The government is the worst of the greed mongers and changing corporations to unlimited liability is not going to change the government. The government, cannot go bankrupt by definition, they exempt from most if not all liability from their acts, and they are exempt even from the laws that they pass for the country.

The members of Congress and the President an his administration don’t even have limited liability, much less unlimited liability.

You asked….

Shalini Kagal from India on March 28, 2009:

Aya – you know that’s so profound. If each person found his own balance without it being imposed from outside, that really woud be true freedom, wouldn’t it! I love the sound of that!

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

John, thanks for your comment.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

CountryWomen, thanks for stopping by. Neither greed nor avarice are bad, as long as they don’t involve harming others. If the government would just stay out of the market, people would be able to make their own cost/benefit analysis and decide according to their own internal needs and their own situation what degree of risk they are willing to take in order to provide for themselves and their family.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Shalini, thanks! What we need is a balance, but each person has to find his own balance, because each of us has a different balance point, depending on our different needs, talents and inclinations. One person can’t find the balance for another. That’s why the government should stay out of the market, and let things sort themselves out.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Paraglider, thanks for stopping by. You write: “I  don’t fully agree that it just means holding on to what you’ve got though. Attachment after all can be akin to lust (for the things of the world) and an avaricious person is likely to be driven as much to acquisitiveness as to retention. The nice old word for the acceptable face of avarice is “thrift”. I don’t think there is an acceptable face of greed, but it’s opposite is probably “restraint”.”

You are right that my usage is not the standard one, but the distinction that I am trying to make, whether the realm of discussion is fiscal, nutritional or romantic, is between the motive to retain or the urge to get more.

Greed in the nutritional realm means “appetite.” Any mother can tell you that when a child has no appetite, that is cause for concern. Children who aren’t born with a healthy appetite experience “failure to thrive.” Sometimes they will not expend the effort necessary to suckle, because they don’t experience a sufficient inducement from the nutritional content of the milk.

There is such a thing as healthy greed. All it really means is an appetite for life and all that makes life enjoyable. When not taken to excess, greed is good. In my book, it is never evil, unless it involves unfairly taking from others. 

You mentioned that the word “attachment” has an application in the area of romance, which is true, but you mistakenly named that application “lust.” Actually, “lust” is like greed, a reference to healthy animal appetite. Attachment refers to bonding, and is more akin to avarice. The ugly side of bonding or attachment is jealousy. The ugly side of lust is profligacy. They are not at all the same. But there is also a healthy side to each.

I wrote a hub about romantic love a while back that explains that not only are attachment and lust different emotions, there are actually specific neurotransmitters that target different area of the brain responsible for generating these emotions. In fact there is a third one, which is much more rare: attraction (or limerence). Almost all people experience lust and attachment, but only a rare individual experiences limerence. The name of my hub about that is “Love and Limerence.”

In the same way, most market participants are motivated partially by greed and partially by avarice, to different extents. But it is a rare individual who experiences a true vocation!

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Issues Veritas, you write:

“I think we agree on the problem but differ radically on the solution. I want to include the government as a big factor in the problem and you can’t fix the problem without fixing them.”

My point was that we need to get rid of all the government interventions that I listed, so my hub does suggest fixing the government.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 28, 2009:

Nets, I would have been quite happy if “aversion” and “avarice” were related etymologically, but they’re not. Historically, averse/ a-vert means turn away from something, while avar means to crave.

I will try to get a cheap copy of Oliver Stone’s Wall Street for Sword, Bow and me to watch.

countrywomen from Washington, USA on March 28, 2009:

Based on your definition I would go for avarice to be the lesser of the evil (but sometimes it may become a virtue too). And going forward in those lines recently I had a discussion where a couple who were earning pretty high and the house they wanted to buy was only about 2.5 times (less than thrice which is the good rule of thumb) but still didn’t go for it. But they feel when they are paying the high taxes why the government should bail out those who are “irresponsible” to take the loans which work out to 5/6 times there annual house hold income. I was till then pretty sympathetic towards the cause of those families who are facing foreclosures but when they raised that issue then I was thinking about this other dimension too.

Maybe in US society avarice isn’t necessarily a virtue by itself. Thumbs up for a thought provoking hub.

Shalini Kagal from India on March 28, 2009:

Aya – I love the way you’ve distinguihed between the two and yet not thrown one out for the other. Yes, in an evolving world we need both – but balance as you say is the key.

Dave McClure from Worcestershire, UK on March 27, 2009:

Aya – I think it is always a good thing to rescue disappearing distinctions between words and concepts. Avarice and greed can become blurred in careless usage. But for most of us, we learn about greed at a much earlier age and then it usually applies to sweets, or similar, where the fusion of acquiring and consuming more than our fair share is very clear. Avarice is a more grown-up word that nearly always applies to money. I don’t fully agree that it just means holding on to what you’ve got though. Attachment after all can be akin to lust (for the things of the world) and an avaricious person is likely to be driven as much to acquisitiveness as to retention. The nice old word for the acceptable face of avarice is “thrift”. I don’t think there is an acceptable face of greed, but it’s opposite is probably “restraint”. Good thoughtful hub.

issues veritas on March 27, 2009:

Aya,

Don’t you think that the greed of the corporations in how they make money and the greed of the government and how they tax have tracked each other. As the government increases taxes the corporations buy other corporations and try to be bigger than the rest so they get all the bananas. (800 lb gorilla).

I think we agree on the problem but differ radically on the solution. I want to include the government as a big factor in the problem and you can’t fix the problem without fixing them.

nhkatz from Bloomington, Indiana on March 27, 2009:

Aya,

The most common usage of risk aversion is in reference to investors. But it is a technical term and could be used more generally.

I suppose it would be too much to hope that there might be an etymological connection between avarice and aversion?

The movie is Oliver Stone’s Wall Street. It’s a classic. I recommend it highly.

Nets

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 27, 2009:

Issues Veritas, I’m sorry I didn’t get to see your complete comment! Talk about the computer editing the comment and changing its meaning!

The clip from the movie that Nets posted above deals with both greed and accountability where the management of corporations is concerned. I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know the context. I’d be curious to see what it had to say about limited liability.

Anyway, I still believe that if you remove limited liability, then stockholders, who are the real owners, will have to oversee management. That will restore accountability.

But this hub isn’t primarily about that. This hub is about the motivation of people in the marketplace and how that has been skewed by government intervention.

Notice that I did not mention either the graduated income tax or welfare recipients. I didn’t find it necessary to do so, because I believe that the differences between greed and avarice can be accounted for even without that.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 27, 2009:

Jerilee, I think things tend to rub off from other people we know well, even when we didn’t agree with them at the time. My parents were always very thrifty, and I didn’t always appreciate it as a child, but they were right.

Nets, I was really inspired to delve into the different and conflicting motivations of market participants as a result of your hub about Supply and Demand. I suppose avarice can be seen as an extreme form of risk aversion, but it doesn’t capture the way in which producers behave differently from consumers. Do the economic strategists take into account that more productive workers might also be more risk averse and more likely to decide to become defectors? Or that being a defector is likely to make you risk averse?

That’s an interesting clip. Do you recommend the movie?

issues veritas on March 27, 2009:

Aya,

I had written a whole response to your 12 points and annotated them in my answer, but when I posted the comment only half of it made it into the comment. So nice try was the result of the comment editor hosing my response.

Corporations are not bad but they have been mutated over the years by Congress. Over the years they relaxed mergers and acquisitions which resulted in Super Corporations. These Super Corporations are getting bigger and bigger and they also became multi-national corporations like AIG that are global.

These corporations can’t be controlled or adequately audited. These corporations are the poster child for “greed”.

nhkatz from Bloomington, Indiana on March 27, 2009:

Aya,

I’m not sure if this is useful to you, but in the theoretical finance literature much of what you are writing about is referred to as risk tolerance (or on the flip side, risk aversion.) Bureaucrats are often quite explicit in saying that they want to increase (or reduce) the “appetite for risk.”

Just for atmospherics, and not to make any particular point, I add this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQnCFdjLJAM&amp…

Jerilee Wei from United States on March 27, 2009:

Aya — I have to admit a bit of him rubbed off on me and he would find it most hilarious to know that I have to admit he was dead on right about a lot of things in life. 

His extreme was what did him in with me, otherwise there never was a more intelligent man as far as I’m concerned. He could no more help his extreme than I could help not being what he needed.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 27, 2009:

Thanks, Jerilee! In fact, when I was reading your hub about the gentleman in question, I’ll admit that while I was generally in your corner, a tiny bit of my heart went out to him, because we share the same vice! When taken to extremes, any virtue can seem a vice. That’s why the market, and not legislators, should find the balance.

Jerilee Wei from United States on March 27, 2009:

Aya — Having been once married to the kind of man who must have been in mind when it came to coining the word “Avarice” in the extreme it gave me a good frame of reference. However, I understood completely what you were getting at, and it seems the world needs balance. I thought this hub was a breath of fresh air. I’ll be bookmarking it.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 27, 2009:

Issues Veritas, could you elaborate? Are you saying that you are not convinved? Or are you saying that other people will not be convinced?

issues veritas on March 27, 2009:

Aya

nice try

Posted in Books and Authors, economics, Opinion Pieces and Editorials | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Misconceptions About Teenaged Mothers

Posted on January 17, 2025 by Aya Katz

Even as single motherhood has become commonplace in our society, and the stigma against out of wedlock births has disappeared, another prejudice has come to replace it: the bias against teenaged mothers.

Here are a few misconceptions about teenaged mothers:

  1. Teenaged mothers are less educated than other mothers.
  2. Teenaged mothers come from broken homes or are the result of bad parenting.
  3. Teen pregnancies are all unplanned and result in unwanted babies.
  4. Teenaged mothers are welfare recipients.
  5. Teenaged mothers did not have strong father figures.
  6. Teenaged mothers end up having too many children

And, finally, last but not least:

7. Mature mothers, women who have waited to become mothers until their social position and career are established, make more reliable mothers than teenagers.

Theodosia Burr Alston

Portrait of Theodosia by John Vanderlyn Theodosia married when she was seventeen and gave birth to her only son in the following year. Credit: Wikipedia
Portrait of Theodosia by John Vanderlyn Theodosia married when she was seventeen and gave birth to her only son in the following year. Credit: Wikipedia

While some teen-aged mothers fit the negative stereotype, these descriptions are not all accurate for most teenaged mothers, and there certainly are, and have been, teenaged mothers in America about whom none of these assumptions are true.

I would like to focus on two historical figures from the American past to illustrate my points. These are both women I admire very much, and each of them became a mother when she was a teenager.

1. Many teenaged mothers are quite well educated

Theodosia Burr Alston was the daughter of Aaron Burr. She was educated at home by her father and was able to write fluently in Greek and Latin, as well as French and English. Aaron Burr was ahead of his time in believing that a young woman should be given the opportunity to receive the same education as a man.

When Theodosia was seventeen years old, and her father was about to become Vice President under Thomas Jefferson, (both had received the same number of votes in the electoral college while running for president), Theodosia married Joseph Alston, the governor of South Carolina. They honeymooned at Niagra Falls, the first American couple ever to do so. Their son, Aaron Burr Alston (“Gampy” for short), was born in the following year.

Laura Ingalls Wilder

Laura Ingalls married Almanzo Wilder when she was eighteen. She gave birth to Rose Wilder Lane when she was nineteen Credit: Wikipedia
Laura Ingalls married Almanzo Wilder when she was eighteen. She gave birth to Rose Wilder Lane when she was nineteen Credit: Wikipedia

Some might argue that Theodosia came from a privileged background and was not a self-made woman. Many parents, when trying to deter their children from following the examples of celebrities, point out to them that what a rich and famous person may do is not acceptable in a person from a more humble background.

My second example lays to rest the notion that successful teen pregnancy is something open only to the privileged class.

Laura Ingalls Wilder was the daughter of a hard working frontier family. While growing up, Laura had no luxuries. Everything the family used, they had to hunt, fish, catch, build, grow and make. Except for sugar and coffee and some kinds of flour, almost all their food staples were home grown. Except for gingham cloth which they did purchase, almost all their clothes were home made. They built their own houses, cured their own meat, hunted their own venison and made their own butter and cheese.

Nevertheless, in this frontier home, there was also time for music, reading and book learning.

Charles Ingalls, Laura’s father, played the violin. On cold winter days when nothing else could be accomplished out of doors, the family sang together, told stories, read the Bible and studied other important literary and historical works.

Much of Laura’s education was acquired at home, although she did attend public school in DeSmet, when she was able. At the age of fifteen, Laura earned a teaching certificate and began to teach in one room school houses, where some of her pupils were older, bigger and rougher than she was. When she was eighteen years old, Laura married Almanzo Wilder and the couple began to homestead together. Laura’s daughter, Rose, was born when she was nineteen.

2. Many teenaged mothers come from good homes

Both Theodosia Burr Alston and Laura Ingalls Wilder came from loving homes where their parents offered an appropriate mix of affection and discipline. Aaron Burr doted on his only daughter, but he did not hesitate to correct her when she made a mistake, whether it was a question of Latin grammar or appropriate decorum when acting as hostess to guests of state in their home. Theodosia’s mother died when she was only a child, and Aaron Burr did not remarry while Theodosia was growing up. He took his role as a father very seriously.

Charles and Carolyn Ingalls were loving parents who did not hesitate to correct their children if they thought their behavior was inappropriate. Despite a strict upbringing, Laura was given the freedom to go out into the world at fifteen and earn a living. Laura was raised to be responsible and self reliant, and her parents trusted her judgments. She met her future husband during the period when she was teaching, and her parents did not interfere with the courtship.

3. Many Teen Pregnancies are Planned, and Most Babies Born to Teen Mothers are Wanted

I don’t know that the teen pregnancies of Theodosia Burr Alston and Laura Ingalls Wilder were planned, but I’m pretty sure that they were not unexpected or unwelcome. In those days, couples didn’t work hard tracking ovulation charts or wearing unusual underwear in order to ensure fertility. They did not know exactly when a pregnancy would occur, but it was common knowledge that pregnancy usually followed naturally within about a year of getting married. People who married were people prepared to start a family.

When we hear of teen pregnancy today, the prevailing assumption is that young women are interested in becoming sexually active, but have no desire to have children. When a pregnancy occurs, people think, it must be the result of carelessness. No teenager would actually want to get pregnant.

I can tell you from introspection that this is not necessarily true.

When I was nineteen, I had just graduated from college with a B.A. in foreign languages, and I was about to start law school. My grandmother took me on a special trip to Paris as a treat. In a park, we came across a group of little children. At the sight of those children, my heart almost overflowed with feeling, and I was overwhelmed with the desire to have a baby. It was a really strong emotion, and it never really went away. Not ever.

When I told my parents about it, they didn’t take my desire to have a baby seriously. They thought I was too young, and I should just concentrate on my studies. I didn’t agree with them, but I did as they said. My parents had nothing to worry about. I didn’t even have a boyfriend.

However, a friend of mine, who was a year older, did have a boyfriend. She married at nineteen and had a baby seven months later — a baby that was not premature. She had been the valedictorian of her high school class and was enrolled in college at the time, though still living at home. She was smart, well educated and came from a loving home. My parents were sure that she had simply gotten carried away with pre-marital sex. My view was different. I thought then, and still think now, that the only people who weren’t planning that pregnancy were her parents.

My friend is still married to the same man. They have four children. The eldest of those children married before my daughter was born.

I had to defer my dream of becoming a mother for many years. When my daughter was born I was thirty-eight. I turned thirty-nine two weeks later.

I am very lucky to have my daughter. I just don’t think the twenty year wait was absolutely necessary.

5. Teenaged mothers often have strong father figures in their lives

BothTheodosia Burr Alston and Laura Ingalls Wilder had strong fathers who were very much involved in their lives when they were growing up. Charles Ingalls became a good father-in-law to Almanzo, and Aaron Burr doted on Gampy.

My friend, the valedictorian who married at nineteen, also had a loving and involved father. Her parents had a good marriage and are still together.

Choosing to become a parent early doesn’t necessarily indicate a girl has had trouble with either parent. Sometimes it just means that her parents set a good example, and she wants to follow in their footsteps.

Even though I didn’t get to realize my dream to be a young mother, I, too, was motivated by my parents’ good example. They were both great parents, and I couldn’t wait to get started down that path, myself.

6. Teenaged mothers can be financially self-sufficient and do not necessarily constitute a burden on the public

Theodosia Burr Alston was married to a wealthy plantation owner who was also the governor of South Carolina. She was clearly not on the dole. Her father had a plan to make her Empress of Mexico, but that’s a different story.

Laura and Almanzo were hard-working, self-sufficient homesteaders. They went through many hard times, but they were good parents, and they always provided their daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, with what she needed when she was growing up.

Despite managing to save money for their retirement, the Wilders found themselves in financial difficulty later in life, due to the stock market crash of 1929. It was their daughter Rose who supported them and helped them get through this rough time. It was also Rose, a journalist and writer, who helped Laura to edit and then publish her Little House series of books. If not for Rose, the daughter Laura gave birth to when she was only nineteen, none of us would ever have heard of Laura Ingalls Wilder.

7. Women who give birth to their first child when they are teens do not necessarily end up having more children

I am concerned about overpopulation, and I have noticed that some of the hubpages dealing with this issue talk about how the more education a woman has, the more likely she is to use contraception to prevent pregnancy while she pursues a career. Education for women is the best way to lower birth rates, the argument goes, and the better educated a women is, the more she will postpone motherhood. The unstated implication is that the later motherhood is postponed, the fewer children women will manage to have, due to age-related fertility issues.

In fact, a woman who has an early pregnancy will not necessarily end up having more children. Theodosia never had another child after Gampy. When her son died in childhood of malaria, she was inconsolable. Sick herself, she boarded a ship to go visit her father in New York. The ship was lost at sea, and Theodosia was never heard from again. Her line died with her.

Laura Ingalls Wilder did give birth to another child after Rose, but he died in infancy. Rose was her only grown child. Rose left no children after her, so I think that we can safely say that Laura and Almanzo, despite their early union, are not guilty of overpopulating the planet.

Wendy Wasserstein gave birth to Lucy Jane when she was 48 years old and died when she was 55.... Photo Credit: New York Times
Wendy Wasserstein gave birth to Lucy Jane when she was 48 years old and died when she was 55…. Photo Credit: New York Times

7. Young mothers are more likely to survive long enough to see their children to adulthood and self-sufficiency

It can be argued that if people are going to make responsible choices about bringing children into the world, it is better for a woman to have her children early rather than late. Later pregnancies are more likely to result in birth defects, underweight babies, and pre-term delivery.

Despite the major advances in fertility treatments in recent years, waiting too late to become a mother puts both the child and the mother at great risk.

A case in point is the playwright Wendy Wasserstein, who gave birth to her daughter Lucy Jane when she was forty-eight years old. Lucy Jane was extremely premature, despite the drugs that Wendy had been given to keep her from going into labor too early. For a while it was touch and go for the baby, who was in intensive care. Nobody can dispute Wendy’s dedication as a mother, or the fact that her involvement helped Lucy Jane to thrive and overcome her problems. Eventually, Wendy was able to take Lucy Jane home, a beautiful, healthy baby. And then, less than seven years later, Wendy Wassersteinn died of lymphoma, a disease she probably succumbed to in part due to the drugs she was given in order to allow Lucy Jane to come into the world.

When I heard this story, it hit me pretty hard. I was thirty-eight when my daughter was born, and Lucy Jane and my daughter are of similar ages.

What would happen to Sword and Bow if I died unexpectledly?

After Wendy Wasserstein died, there were some hateful commentaries on the net, suggesting that this had happened because Wendy was “selfish”. The commentators seemed to equate choosing to be a single mother with choosing to be single. There was the implication that if Wendy Wasserstein had wanted to, she could have married someone earlier and had a baby the normal way. Her deferral of parenthood, it was suggested, came from an unwillingness to compromise over the choice of a mate.

However, when Laura Ingalls married Almanzo Wilder, she wasn’t compromising. She was in love, and the life they made together, despite all its trials, was a dream come true.

The problem with Wendy Wasserstein’s choice to become a mother when she did was not that she was single. It was not that she wanted to be happy. The problem was that she was too old. At that age, she should have been a grandmother. Despite her best efforts, Wendy wasn’t able to be there for Lucy Jane.

Governor Sarah Palin is the mother of five children, including pregnant teen Bristol and Trig, an infant with Down's Syndrome Photo Credit: Wikipedia
Governor Sarah Palin is the mother of five children, including pregnant teen Bristol and Trig, an infant with Down’s Syndrome Photo Credit: Wikipedia

The Special Needs Child and the Older Parent

Lucy Jane Wasserstein is probably going to be just fine. She is living with her uncle and his family, and they will see to it that all her needs are met until she is ready to take responsibility for herself.

If I die tomorrow, my family will do the same for my daughter. Being orphaned is not good, but children survive such an experience, and even if there is no father, there is usually a family member who will look out for the child until the child is able to stand on its own as a self-sufficient adult.

The case of special needs children, however, is quite different. I know. Bow is my special needs child, and he will need help long after I am gone. Bow is a chimpanzee, but there are humans who face the same problem.

In the news recently there has been a lot about Sarah Palin, the current governor of Alaska, and McCain’s choice of a running mate.

Some of the criticism has been centered on the reproductive choices that Sarah Palin has made, and about the choices of her teenaged daughter, Bristol.

Two facts bother the critics:

(1) Palin’s daughter Bristol is seventeen years old and five months pregnant. She and the father of her child plan to marry after the baby is born.

(2) Palin’s infant son Trig was born with Down’s Syndrome. She was aware of the condition before he was born and chose not to have an abortion.

As I understand it, Bristol’s unborn baby is healthy and without any special disabilities.

Of the two issues, the first seems entirely unproblematic. What Bristol and her boyfriend are doing is not so different from what teenagers throughout history have done when starting a family. Bristol Palin is not significantly different from Theodosia Burr Alston or Laura Ingalls Wilder. Whether the young parents marry before the birth, after the birth or during the birth makes no difference. Even if they don’t marry at all, there is little danger that the child Bristol is carrying will be abandoned, malnourished or in any way mistreated. The parents are taking responsibility for the child, and there is no danger that the burden of caring for this baby will ever fall on the public.

The same cannot be said about Trig. In all likelihood, despite the best intentions of the Palins, Trig will need support and care long after his parents are gone.

Even though Sarah Palin is healthy and though she may have a long, productive life ahead of her, like Wendy Wasserstein with Lucy Jane, she will probably leave her youngest child before he is ready to support himself. This is because the lifespan of Down’s Syndrome children has increased through medical intervention. In previous centuries, a Down’s Syndrome child often did not survive to adulthood. Therefore, the burden of caring for such children, while it may have been heavy, could still be carried by parents during their lifetime.

Sarah Palin already had four healthy children when Trig was conceived. Given her policy against abortion, it seems odd that she didn’t consider using ordinary contraception to prevent a fifth pregnancy this late in her life.

Contraception is less controversial than abortion, and it is a good tool for sexually active people to use, whether they are married or not, to avoid unwanted or problematic pregnancies. While I am less concerned that Bristol didn’t choose to use contraceptives, I am far more concerned about Sarah Palin, since as an older mother, she must have known the odds for a Down’s Syndrome baby in her case were higher.

The Burden of a Parent’s Choice

I support the right to choose, including Sarah Palin’s choice to maintain her pregnancy and give birth to her son. My concerns about Trig do not stem from a prejudice against people who look different, act different, or have a different number of chromosomes from me. All those things are true of Bow, and I am as dedicated to him as Sarah Palin is to her special needs child.

The legitimate public concern about every Down’s Syndrome baby is: who will care for it when it is grown and the parents are no longer able? A perfectly acceptable question to ask Governor Palin is this: “What measures have you taken to ensure that when you are gone, other people and their children do not end up having to earn money, against their will and without their consent, in order to support your child?”

That was always the real issue behind the stigma attached to illegitimacy. It is the hidden reason that people still frown on teen pregnancies. It isn’t that anybody really cares about anybody else’s reproductive or sexual activity. What people want to know is: who will support this child?

Everybody has the right to have children. Nobody has the right to have them at somebody else’s expense.

Pregnant Teens and You

Laura Ingalls Wilder

Comments

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on February 09, 2014:

Jodie, I did not mention the baby boy who died who was the son of Laura Ingalls Wilder, because it was not relevant. Infant mortality in general was common in those days and did not imply neglect. Every single baby boy that Laura’s mother, Caroline, gave birth to also died in early infancy. Rose Wilder also gave birth to a baby boy who died. It seems that in that family, only baby girls survived, possibly due to a genetic anomaly that was sex-based. I am sure they wanted those baby boys to live — boys were highly valued on a farm — and did their best to help them survive. Not every tragedy can be blamed on the youth of the parents.

As for the fire being Rose’s fault, I don’t think we know that for sure. I am a Libertarian, and I have read some of the works of Rose Wilder Lane and biographies about her. My information is not all from the Wikipedia . I am also aware that people have been scrutinizing the relationship between Rose Wilder Lane and Laura Ingalls Wilder and their collaboration on the Little House books.

The fact that childhood was difficult in those days and not every child survived is part of the background to that period. Not supervising children every moment of the day was the norm, rather than the exception. Nobody was guaranteed a happy childhood then, nor are they now, with all the technology and public assistance that we have in the present day.

jodie on February 09, 2014:

Your information about Laura Ingalls Wilder is really not very accurate. Her father did “interfere” in her courtship, and greatly disapproved of the age difference between her and her future husband. He made them wait until she turned 18 to marry. She did indeed have her first child at 19. While not supervising her child when she was about 3, the child managed to burn down the house- this was right after Laura had her second child, who died.

Did the kid die because she was young? Probably not, it was a common occurrence of the time- but interesting that you would fail to mention it. Also, Rose, the child that lived (and who burned down the house) reportedly grew up to be a seriously depressed and unhappy woman, who blamed her unhappiness on her childhood of poverty and her relationship with her mother. Rose also made references to her mother not being a “grown-up” while Rose was a child, and this greatly distressed Rose.

Read “Becoming Laura Ingalls Wilder” rather than Wikipedia for a slightly more factual accounting of her life.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on July 20, 2013:

Thanks, babynology.

babynology from New York on July 20, 2013:

Congratulation on maintaining a great hub. And a lot interesting subject. My hub is about baby names and baby names meaning – All suggestion baby naming.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on December 05, 2012:

Having a baby — or even merging your life with another person — is a huge risk, Angelo. The older we get, the less likely we are to take those huge, life risking leaps. We become risk averse. Taking too many risks can end in death — but not taking enough risks can end in not reproducing oneself. It makes sense that people tend to fall in love earlier in life, because falling in love is a huge risk. It was designed that way.

Are you sure that all girls (or boys) need to study for so many years? What are they learning? Are they reading Greek and Latin classics in the original, the way Theodosia Burr did before her marriage? Or are they just wasting their time in schools that teach nothing? Is it really necessary for girls to be a drain on their parents well until their mid-twenties? Couldn’t they become self-supporting — or married — before then?

How early a girl gets her period is related to the ethnic group from which she derives. Historically, girls from ethnic groups that mature earlier came from cultures that allowed for marriage earlier.

Angelo on December 05, 2012:

Yes women are able to have children at a young age but that doesn’t mean they are mentally or emotionally ready to. As a teenager women are still doing studies and being supported by their parents and are not yet ready to make such a huge choice. Until the age of 25 are brains are prone to taking huge risks because the part of our brain that throughly weighs consequences is not yet developed. A child needs a mother who will help stop them from making really dumb choices not one that still make them herself. I do believe as well that teen mothers should get as much help as possible after the child is born and all the support from those around her as she can. Also there have been girls who got there first period at the age of 9, is that a good age to have a baby to you too.

Angelo on December 05, 2012:

Now I don’t hate young mothers who have a child but i do think that we should try to prevent it from happening. I don’t look down upon people who have a child when they are young so don’t misunderstand my point. I just think it’s wrong that it seems like you are trying to encourage people to have children at a younger age. Also that’s an outrageous claim about how there should be no well fare in this country. Making everyone in the world strictly independent is a horrible thing t do in this country. It would tear down community and make it so that people who really need it have to suffer. Didn’t anyone teach about sharing, sure there are always the few who abuse it but it is still a necessary program to have in this country. The government needs to care for all people so we can try to avoid them ending up homeless or broke. How would you like it if your job made some budget cuts which ended up in you getting fired so that those on top can stay rich and there was no well fare to help you. Most of the claims you have made were ignorant and wrong. Again you did not give any good evidence to support your claims you just took all of them from observing three or four people and only one or two of them I would consider liable. I am pro-choice but i don’t necessarily think that teens should get aborted, i think it should be a carefully thought out decision which it almost always is. Also saying that women should have children when there younger because they won’t have health problems isn’t that good of a point when you look at all of the bad that outweighs it. Teens are still becoming adults them selves and to deliberately bring a child into this world when they are still children themselves is wrong. Also I think 26 years or around that age is a good time to have a baby to me, you are done with most your studies and you won’t deprive the child of any attention because you don’t have time.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on December 05, 2012:

Angelo, the social norms may have changed, but women’s bodies and souls have not. It was designed to work this way that when a woman is ready to experience love, she is ready to have a baby; if something needs to be done to prevent suffering from social stigmatization, it would be to have a society that conforms better to the needs of mothers and children.

Many women do put off child-bearing these days because of the social pressure to do so. They face infertility, reduced fertility and is some cases a lifetime of caring for children who are genetically or otherwise damaged due to the lateness in the mother’s life of their conception. Meanwhile, a majority of healthy children born are to younger and unmarried women. Instead of blaming those women for following nature’s plan, wouldn’t it be better to make our society more accepting of what works in human reproduction?

Angelo on December 05, 2012:

That was an unreliable hub, you only spoke of 3 examples to support your claim and two of which were from a time when becoming a parent while still in teenage years was the norm. The truth is teen pregnancy ruins peoples lives and is a huge problem in this country. Usually it is wrong and irresponsible to have a child when you are still growing up yourself. it is unfair to the child to have a mother who still isn’t even past high school to look up to. Of course there probably are those rare occasions like your friend when everything works out great but in reality it usually tears peoples lives apart. You should have our own future in place before you worry about someone else’s anything else is unfair to the child

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on March 18, 2012:

Julie, you misunderstand my point about Trig Palin. I absolutely agree that the abilities and disabilities and future contributions of our children are nobody’s business but our own. But what goes along with that is that we, and only we, should be responsible for providing for our children, so long as they remain in a dependent state. If there were no welfare — and there shouldn’t be any — then the fact that Trig has a disability would be the exclusive business of his parents. Because there _is_ welfare, it becomes everybody’s possible future burden.

Julie on March 17, 2012:

While the article makes some interesting points, I think there is too much emphasis on people’s children being the business of others. For example, Sarah Palin’s child was born with a known disadvantage and probably will need support for his entire life, and may survive his mother. This article seems to imply that this is a concern of ours, and Sarah Palin should have done something to prevent this. The glaring error of this is that, while most babies are born perfectly healthy, they navigate an entire lifetime. In the course of this, they will at times be more helpful than not to their fellow man, and at other times will need a hand. Some, of course, seem to devolve into perpetual neediness even though they were “perfect” at birth. Also, this line of talk reduces human beings to the value of their material contribution and ignores the unquantifiable value of the deep bonds between humans even if an outsider might see more “take” than “give”. I imagine that Trig Palin’s siblings and extended family will be happy to pitch in for him later as they apparently do now, and no one should be judged for welcoming a child.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on January 04, 2012:

Thanks, Paxwill. I think that people are beginning to see past some of the prejudices against young mothers that such shows tend to enshrine.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on October 01, 2011:

MCLeodgi, thanks for sharing this unusual set of circumstances and the different perspective on it all.

I understand what you are saying about your fiance’s mother. But I also wonder: if you are not having a baby because you want the baby very much, then why have it? It’s almost paradoxical to think being unplanned for or unwanted makes for a better start in life.

Are you saying that your fiancé doesn’t love his mother? If so, surely it has to do with something she has done to him, and is not necessarily the result of wanting a baby so much that she was willing to have him alone.

There are a lot of social factors involved in finding and keeping a mate. Sometimes people who have social disabilities choose to have a child alone, because they cannot manage the complex social machinations necessary to keep a relationship afloat. It then may also transpire that they are not as good at parenting as other people, for the same reasons. But do you really want to doom social outcasts to a life of complete isolation? Are you saying that a woman who can’t get and keep a man should also forget about raising a child?

I like how you express gratitude for the fact that your fiancé was born. Maybe if you express this gratitude to his mother, she will feel better in her loneliness and isolation. If she is trying to hold on too tight, this might help her to let go and enjoy a better relationship with both you and her son.

Ginny McLeod from Overland Park on September 30, 2011:

New and fresh perspectives are always appreciated. The reasons why you want to have a child is also very important. My fiance’s mother had him at the age of 26 and has never married (his father was already married with three other children). She had been trying to get pregnant for a year by then. She came from a rather abusive background and simply made the mistake of believing that having a child would guarantee having someone who would love her back. I can tell you right now that I think this is one of the worst reasons to have a child and she and my fiancé have had struggles like you wouldn’t believe.

If on the other hand, he hadn’t been born (what’s strange is that he also wouldn’t have been if c-sections hadn’t been invented by 1980’s), I would probably hardly know what it’s like to have someone love me for who I truly am. It’s one of the world’s strangest feelings.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on April 06, 2011:

Exmoor, thanks for your comment. I didn’t say that I thought Sarah Palin’s youngest child was necessarily going to be a burden on the government. What I said was that while she was a candidate for public office, asking Palin what measures she was taking to make sure that her son would never be a burden to others was a legitimate question, considering the sorts of public funding that are currently in place to support disabled persons. Asking about her daughter’s personal life, including her daughter’s private reproductive choices, was not.

Exmoor on April 05, 2011:

Good article. It was very informative and helped with understanding many concepts and myths. I don’t agree with your stand on abortion and contraception and Sarah Palin’s son being a burden on the government though. It depends on the severity of the Down’s Syndrome child too. I applaud Palin for going through with it. Down’s children might be a lot of work, but they can be a real joy to be around, provided you have the right attitude. 🙂

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on October 04, 2010:

Amanda, I agree. Every individual is different, and what is right for one person may be wrong for someone else. Women can be successful mothers at nineteen, at twenty-nine and at thirty-nine and beyond. We just have to stop pressuring everyone to conform to a single acceptable pattern.

Amanda Severn from UK on October 04, 2010:

Hi Aya, like you, I had my babies in my late 30s. I didn’t plan it that way, it was just the way things worked out for me. I’m one one of a family of 6, and 3 out of those 6 began their families in their teens. It’s been interesting to see how my nephews and nieces have turned out. I don’t know whether there is an optimum age for having children. Every individual is different, and will cope with the prevailing circumstances in their own individual way.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on October 02, 2010:

tlpoague, thank you for sharing your story and the reasons for making your decision. Were there problems with your aunt’s child that she had when she was forty? This is an unusual motivation for a young woman to choose to have children early, but it makes a lot of sense. A lot of women of my generation were encouraged to wait, and I think some did not realize the risks of waiting.

Congratulations on your twentieth wedding anniversary! It’s good to know that early marriages can still be successful in this day and age.

tlpoague on October 02, 2010:

Very informative hub…Thanks! I am one of those people that chose to have children while being a teenager. I was married while still a senior in high school and had my son by the end of my senior year. I received lots of ridicule and criticism for my choice. I had my daughter 2 months after I turned 20. I will admit that having two children so close together and while I was so young was hard. I have no regrets for my decision. I will be married 20 years this year. My choice was due to my aunt waiting till she had a child at the age of 40. I have a cousin six months younger than me that waited till we were 30 before she had her children. She told me one day, after an apology for comments made when I had my children, that she could understand now why I had my children so young. I never had the health issues that she had with herself and her children. My children, thankfully, were healthy when they were born. For myself, I have seen the downfalls of teenagers getting pregnant by mistake. I have seen some teens get pregnant to make their parents angry, and some that had decided they wanted children at a young age. I come from a long line of women on my mother’s side whom all had children at young ages. The youngest was my great grandmother who had her first at 15. I think it was wonderful that you took the time to write a hub as powerful as this about the stereotype that young teens have when having children. As for my children, both of them want to wait till they are a little older before settling down. Thanks again and great hub!

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on October 02, 2010:

FirstStepsFitness, thanks. I agree. Every woman has a right to make her own choice. It is not up to society to condemn her.

FirstStepsFitness on October 01, 2010:

Excellent Hub ! Every woman has a right to her choice , it is not up to society to control or condemn her choice for it is her personal choice ! Every teen should be given the 3 choices to delve into to make as an informed decision as possible for she will have to live with the outcome .

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on April 24, 2010:

GmaGoldie, thanks! I think that whether one is pro-choice or pro-life, the best thing we can do for young mothers is to respect their right to choose to be mothers, and not to pre-judge their ability to provide for their children. Most women don’t want an abortion. Those who get one are usually giving in to social pressure.

Kelly A. Kline from USA on April 24, 2010:

Great Hub! Well discussed and laid and great title too!

My great grandparent had “children” very young – the stories are interesting and I thank God every day that the babies were not aborted or I would not be here. I used to be a “pro-choice” person but as I age, I now know the miracle of birth. Whatever the age, birth is a gift directly from God. In our society we emotionally hang teenagers for having children.

Vrajavala makes an important point – the expense of someone else – hmmmm.

The value of life needs a different paradigm. I want to keep my money but if an Einstein is not walking this planet because of the expense, we as humanity have paid a larger price.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on November 10, 2009:

R.G. San Ramon, thanks for your input! It sounds as if you have made a wise and well-considered decision to have a child earlier rather than later. There is a time for every thing in life, and it is good to choose the time that is best for us and our children.

R.G. San Ramon on November 10, 2009:

#7 is simply the best! That’s the reason why I got pregnant early. I want to see my child grow and have her children of her own before I die. Yes I know that I cannot control destiny entirely, but I’ll have more chance with this. And, I get to be “free” from parental roles earlier than usual. 😛

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on October 25, 2009:

Vrajavala, thanks for your comment. I think children are wonderful, and I am very grateful for mine, but it would not be right to expect others to pay for my happiness. So it is for all of us. What would have been a deeper way to think of it?

vrajavala from Port St. Lucie on October 25, 2009:

good article, very informative. One thing I do disagree with is when you said “Nobody has the right to have children at someone else’s expense.” Seems you could have thought it through a little deeper.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on January 15, 2009:

Momma09, thanks!

M0MMA09 from Northern Virginia on January 15, 2009:

What a great hub! Thank you for guiding me to this (I love the detail you went into.) :]

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on January 04, 2009:

Maria Reza, thanks for commenting and sharing your experience. It sounds as if everything turned out very well for you! Sometimes shouldering responsibility at a young age is a positive thing.

Maria Reza on January 03, 2009:

Hi,

I am so glad that you do not look down at young mothers. I feel that all those misconceptions are so true. I am a young mom at age of 16. I was blessed with so many great people in my life. I think instead of society looking down at all young moms, there should be education on being a great role model. All we need are people willing to invest a little time. I am not saying it is okay to be a young mom, but I tell you one thing. I took advantage of all the advise given to me. My husband of 14yrs is great support. Marriage is hard but worth fighting for. Being a young mom I matured at a very young age. I did not feel sorry for myself, I think people did that for me. I own my own business. I was open to oppurtunities. One thing that young moms suffer from is low self esteem. All they need is positive guidance!! All your info helps!!!

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on September 12, 2008:

Lela, thanks for the input!

I tried to follow the link for the event on Saturday, but I got this message:

File ozark-writers08I does not exist! 

Is there another way to get there?

Lela Davidson from Bentonville, Arkansas on September 12, 2008:

Interesting research and personal observation. Great Hub. If you get a chance, come to the OWL event at the FPL this Saturday!http://www.faylib.org/events/press_releases.asp?an… will be speaking on online writing.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on September 04, 2008:

Allshookup, that’s okay. I’m sorry if I didn’t make it more clear. Once a pregnancy is underway, nobody can or should tell the mother to terminate it. I was just saying that older mothers need to be more careful before a baby is conceived.

Of course, it’s none of our business what married people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. The only time it becomes any of our business is if we’re told we have to pay for it.

allshookup from The South, United States on September 04, 2008:

I’m sorry if i misunderstood what you meant. That’s just how it came across to me. I am pro-life and I believe that a baby is a baby at the second of conception. No matter what name pro-choice people give it. It’s like they call it an embryo or other names to make it not sound like a baby so it will be easier to murder them so the mother doesn’t have to feel as bad about murdering her child. But for me and all the pro-life people I know, no matter what name it is given, at the moment of conception, it is a baby and it has a soul. Again, I’m sorry if I misunderstood what you meant.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on September 04, 2008:

Allshookup, I don’t think I implied Sarah Palin should have had an abortion. What I said was that because she knew ahead of time that an abortion was out of the question for her, then she needed to take extra care to make sure she didn’t run the risk of a problem with the ovum. An ovum isn’t considered a person even by pro-lifers. That’s why, for someone with those convictions, the point of taking responsibility has to be earlier, before the point of no return, when the ovum turns into an embryo.

I support a woman’s right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term no matter what. I also believe that all parents are responsible for supporting their own children.

Aya Katz (author) from The Ozarks on September 04, 2008:

Gwendymom, thanks for the support.

Anna Marie, thanks for the input. In fact, I don’t think there’s that much that we disagree on. I didn’t say that Trig will necessarily ever be a burden on others. It could be that he will become one of the self-sufficient success stories concerning Down’s Syndrome children. What I said was that it’s a legitimate question to ask Governor Palin, considering her public position.

Whether Trig becomes a burden for others to carry doesn’t just depend on him, his abilities or his upbringing. It also depends on the laws in place at the time when he is an adult. As a candidate for national office, Sarah Palin has an opportunity to help shape those laws. This is why we should find out where she stands when it comes to public assistance to people with disabilities.

Allshookup, thanks for the support. I think every experience always seems a little different when it happens close to home. Teen mothers who act as responsible parents are not that rare.

allshookup from The South, United States on September 04, 2008:

I agree also. Good hub. I love how you pointed out so many prejudices against young mothers. Well done. Teenage pregnancy happens in all races and all walks of life. We should be supporting them, not putting them down as seen so much in the last few days on such a public platform. I feel it it were those people’s daughter, they would be seeing things in a different light. I can’t imgaine having to deal with this issue at such a young age and in the public eye like this. I admire her for keeping the baby and going through all of this for her/him. But, I disagree with the 2 facts that you named being labeled ‘bother.’ They are the ones making the decision to marry and care for the child. Their parents are having to think this through now and see how they feel about it before they sign for them to get married. They are not running off and getting married. So, I feel they are taking time now to consider if this is what they should be doing. I’m glad they are thinking it through before taking such a commitment. And I disagree strongly about the fact that you implied that Sarah should have had an abortion when she found out Trig was going to be a ‘special’ child. He is that way for a reason that God knows. She said herself that he is a blessing in her life. How many blessings like Trig have been murdered because the mother didn’t want a perfect child. I admire her very much for keeping him. Since I am not in her shoes, I do not know if she used protection or not when having sex with her husband. That, again, is their business. He has 4 siblings older than he is and I’m sure will help with him. I have worked with Down’s children/adults, and I cannot see how anyone would want to kill them. In your poll, I answered ‘Other’ because you did not put an acceptable answer on there for me. I would NEVER and I repeat NEVER ask my daughter to kill her baby for the reason of birth control. That option would never have been brought up in this instance. Bristol chose to have sex and this baby is the result. She should take responsibility, which she is. I would have my daughter do the same. Raise the baby. If they wanted to marry, we would consider that with alot of prayerful consideration, but she would have the baby, married or not. This child is not a mistake. S/he is a baby and should be treated as one. You did a good job showing that teenage pregnancy happens in different walks of life. Which I agree with. But the ‘bother’ list, I just can’t agree with. Like I said, if it were the critics daughter pregnant, they would be looking at this differently, I’m sure. Or at least they should.

Anna Marie Bowman from Florida on September 04, 2008:

I agreed with a lot of what you had to say. I did not, however, agree with your opinion on Sarah Palin’s son, Trig, being a burden on the government, and that she should have used protection to avoid a pregnancy so late in life. While it is true that great advancements have been made in lengthening the life span of children born with Down’s Syndrome, it is also true that many more people struggling with Down’s Syndrome are leading fairly self sufficient lives, holding down jobs, living in their own homes, or in communities, similar to communities for retired people, that offer a minimal amount of assistance where it is needed. There are varying degrees of disablilty when it comes to Down’s Syndrome. I applaud Sarah Palin for her courage, and for sticking to her convictions.

gwendymom from Oklahoma on September 04, 2008:

Thanks for publishing this hub, I agree that not all teenage mothers are a burden on society.

Posted in Books and Authors, Child Rearing, Family | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is Ableism Just Another Word for Meritocracy?

Posted on December 8, 2024 by Aya Katz

Ableism, derived from “able” plus “-ism”, is a term for discriminating against people based on disability. Just like racism and sexism, ableism is a form of discrimination. Discrimination is bad when it targets irrelevant traits in disqualifying a person for performance of a job. But how can it be wrong to discriminate against a person for being unable to perform the job? If the disability in question is relevant to job performance, then ableism is not that different from meritocracy.

In an odd form of gaslighting, termed by Kate Gladstone as “information scapegoating” some people on the autism spectrum have been discriminated against as being too able — or possessing knowledge that the average person does not have.

Meanwhile, current autism advocates insist that autism is only a disability, and that if a person on the spectrum does not need special accommodations, that person cannot be entitled to an autism diagnosis. The idea that autism is a super power that enables autistics to perform at a higher level than neurotypicals is soundly denied.

Clearly the DSM–V is a diagnostic and statistical manual that is intended to allot government interventions and funding based on a series of criteria. As long the government is involved in the diagnosis and allotment of special privileges, the autism diagnosis will be used to thwart meritocracy and to promote disability over ability.

Posted in Education: Teaching and Learning, Opinion Pieces and Editorials | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Has Autism Been Co-opted by the Left?

Posted on November 16, 2024 by Aya Katz

In the early two thousands, at the turn of the millenium, we saw a sharp upswing in autism diagnosis. Was it because there was a greater awareness of the phenomenon, or could it have been that the greater awareness was a result of a real epidemic of global proportions? It might have been a little of both. As more and more very young children were receiving an autism diagnosis, more and more parents were researching the subject, and many of them discovered that they themselves had a milder version of their children’s condition: they had high functioning autism, known as Asperger’s Syndrome.

In 2001 I moved with my two year old daughter to a remote location in rural Missouri, in preparation for an ape language experiment. I was planning to adopt a baby chimpanzee and to bring it up with my daughter, in a cross-fostering environment calculated to allow the chimpanzee to pick up human language naturally, in an environment of total immersion.

The Cover of my Children’s Book, When Sword Met Bow

Before we arrived in Missouri, my daughter and I had been living in Taiwan. My daughter had had a nanny who spoke to her in Mandarin Chinese, and I spoke to my daughter in Hebrew. It was only when she started going to preschool in the United States that my daughter picked up English.

The language experiment with Bow, the chimpanzee that I adopted, originally used lexigrams in Mandarin, Hebrew and English.

The Project Bow DVD Playlisthttps://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvKl93VPL_oNJtFvdQcpSC3WEy4bDCCpZ

At the time when I adopted Bow, it was believed by many that chimpanzees lacked a theory of mind, and that in that sense they were like autistic individuals. (This is not actually true. Chimpanzees have an excellent theory of mind, much better than that of most neurotypical human beings.) Because of this belief, I started researching therapies for autistic children, and I came across Stanley Greenspan‘s Floortime DIR.

Floortime required caretakers of a child to get down on the floor on the same level as the child and to try to see the child’s point of view, while gently enticing the child to join the caretaker in as many circles of communication as the child was able. Instead of coercing behaviors that were desired by a rough system of punishment and reward, as was done in the competing treatment system called ABA, Floortime used lighthearted play sessions and enticement. ABA used operant conditioning to brainwash a subject into behaving as the caretaker desired. Floortime did not use coercion. It fostered genuine, spontaneous communication between the caretaker and the child.

Floortime worked with Bow. He did learn to communicate with us, and because of this, Bow is able to continue to live in my home to this very day, when he is 22 years old, going on 23.

In the meanwhile, as I was learning about autism, it did occur to me, based on an analysis of my life history, that I may have been on the spectrum. I never got a diagnosis, nor did I ever seek special accommodations. It was just somewhat satisfying to think that many misunderstandings in the past may have stemmed from clashes with neurotypicals, who viewed life through a hypersocial lens, believing that one can negotiate a shared reality through enforced social consensus. I likened the neurotypicals to Ayn Rand’s social metaphysicians, who could not determine truth or falsity of propositions except by reference to a social yardstick. Neurotypicals were altruists, in that they let others think for them, while autistics were autoists, individuals who thought for themselves.

And then one day, Asperger’s was cancelled! The diagnosis entirely disappeared from the DSM. Why? The initial response is that it was because Hans Asperger was a Nazi. However, this response is highly unsatisfactory, because to the extent that Asperger was a Nazi, he had always been a Nazi. Nothing about his Nazi affiliation changed in the new millenium. Why were we told Asperger’s syndrome was a diagnosis in the year 1994? Why did it become a non-diagnosis in 2013?

Hans Asperger was an Austrian psychiatrist who collaborated with the Nazis when they took over his country after the Anschluss. By creating a special category of autistics who were high functioning — Asperger’s Syndrome — he saved many children from certain death. However, he did not save all the children. Those who were nonverbal and low functioning ended up at another clinic where many were “euthenized.”

Is Asperger evil because he did not save all the children from the Nazis? Or was it good that he was at least able to save some of them? And if he discovered a real psychiatric phenomenon, does it matter whether Asperger was good or evil? Are we going to change the name of every diagnosis based on fluctuating views about the personality of the scientist who discovered it?

The Left is constantly looking to level real differences between individuals, while co-opting every label to serve their own collectivist agenda. Today on social media we see many so-called autistic influencers who are very social, well groomed and manipulative. They assert that autism is a disability, and anyone who does not need accommodations need not apply for a diagnosis. The diagnosis is merely a ticket to another form of identity politics, allowing for government funding and differential treatment of individuals.

Something that was once a doorway to self-understanding by individuals with unusual levels of autonomy from social pressure has now turned into another weapon of mass manipulation. It is not surprising, under these circumstances, that the government funds the oppressive ABA therapies and entirely ignores Floortime DIR.

Posted in Apes and Language, Child Rearing, Opinion Pieces and Editorials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Matter of Milk

Posted on September 17, 2024 by Aya Katz

Updated on September 26, 2008

Aya Katz profile image

There has been a lot in the nutritional literature lately about milk. Some have suggested that children should never be given milk. Others have said that children should never be given soy as a substitute for milk. Some have stated that we can all do without milk, since there are other sources of calcium and other sources of fat. I have provided links to many of these articles, so you can read them for yourself.

I am not much of a milk drinker myself. The story goes that when my mother weaned me of her breast milk, she offered me the bottle, instead. I don’t like substitutes. I am very suspicious when someone tries to pass off one thing as something else. I rejected the bottle as a poor substitute for my mother’s breast. I also pretty much rejected milk as a beverage. I use milk in my cereal as a sort of condiment, though I don’t drink what’s leftover in the bowl after the cereal is gone. I like cheese, and the only reason I don’t eat butter is that I’ve stopped eating bread. Milk, in and of itself, is not a big factor in my diet. However, I am not anti-milk, and the current nutritional trend of completely rejecting milk has me curious.

What is behind such a strong reaction, by the same people who used to tout milk as the most nutritious of substances only a couple of decades ago? Why do Americans, in particular, have such strong feelings for or against milk? And why are there suddenly so many people who are lactose intolerant? How did that come about? Twenty years ago, I never even heard of such a thing. There were people who liked milk and people who didn’t, but intolerance?That’s a pretty strong word.

And what’s more, did you know that people are now saying that milk is bad for cats? Have the cats heard about this?

Determined to get to the bottom of this mystery, I decided to do some research.

Holstein Cows — Milk Producers

Photo Credit: The Wikipedia
Photo Credit: The Wikipedia

Milk and Honey

“Milk and honey are the only articles of diet whose sole function in nature is food. It is not surprising, therefore, that the nutritional value of milk is high.” This is a quote from the article on milk consumption whose link is provided to the right. When we say that the nutritional value of milk is high, we mean a number of different things: (1) milk is a calorie dense food, so just a little of it provides enough to eat, as opposed to a food like lettuce or garden greens. (2) Milk contains most of the types of nutrients that we need to live: fat, protein and carbohydrates, as well as calcium and vitamins A, D, E and K. (3) If you had only milk to consume, you would not starve. This is not true of most foods.

Having said that, I don’t know of any human being above the age of five who would want to live only on milk. Most people enjoy variety in their diet. While someone living only on milk would not starve, he might still experience some serious nutritional deficits. For instance, there’s not any vitamin C in milk, and in order to live healthy lives, we need that nutrient as well.

It’s nice to have options. Milk and dairy products are good choices, but they are not the only choices we have, and it is also very easy to get all the nutrients found in milk by eating a variety of other foods. There are people for whom milk is not an option, and they manage to get by just fine without it.

Lactose

Image Credit: The Wikipedia
Image Credit: The Wikipedia

Lactose Intolerance

According to the wikipedia article whose link appears above the picture of the Holstein cows, milk is an emulsion of fat globules in a water-based liquid.So basically, it’s fat floating in water. Only unlike most fat and water mixes, it stays even.Each fat globule is surrounded by a protein membrane that keeps it from breaking up. Inside the fluid part of the milk are casein protein “micelles”: groups of several thousand protein molecules that are bound together by calcium phosphate strands.About forty percent of the calories in milk come from the carbohydrate lactose. Lactose is made up of two simple sugars, glucose and galactose.

People who are said to be “lactose intolerant” are unable to digest lactose. They don’t have enough of the enzyme lactase which is found in small intestine and helps to break up lactose into its component sugars, glucose and galactose.

Common symptoms of lactose intolerance are nausea, cramping, bloating, gas and diarrhea occurring within thirty minutes to two hours of milk consumption.

Healthy normal infants start out with reasonable amounts of lactase at birth. Lactase production diminishes after age two, but most people don’t notice any deficiency until they are much older, if ever. A primary lactase deficiency is one unaccompanied by other disease. There is also such a thing as secondary lactase deficiency, which come about as a result of injury to the GI tract or through disease. Secondary lactase deficiency is a symptom of certain gastro-intestinal diseases, like celiac disease, IBD, and Crohn’s disease.

There are genetic factors in the predisposition for developing a primary lactase deficiency. Scientists speculate that lactose tolerance is the innovation and that intolerance is the natural state of humans prior to the domestication of milk producing ruminants about 10,000 years ago. I will get back to this point later.

In addition to lactose intolerance, there is also a rare form of milk allergy due to the inability to process casein.

Casein Free Diet for Some Autistics

  • Diet and Autism: Myths and miracles
    Autism Spectrum Disorder is a broad spectrum of disorders, hence the use of the word “spectrum” in its title. Autism is becoming more understood nowadays by the public, due in part to publicity by celebrities…

The Casein Free Diet

Some infants and children who suffer from low-functioning autism have been cured simply by removing gluten and casein from their diets. A gluten free/casein free diet is one that totally eliminates milk, due to the protein casein. In those individuals, the inability ot properly metabolize either gluten or casein produces a morphine like substance that sedates them and inhibits normal cognitive development. Such children, once on the diet, suddenly gain the ability to interact normally with others and to have normal language development.

For these children and their families, the elimination of milk from the diet (as well as all other foods with either gluten or casein in them) is a very small price to pay for a complete cure.

However, most forms of autism have nothing to do with casein, and a milk free diet does nothing to help most people with an autistic spectrum disorder. This is because autism is a syndrome whose similar symptoms can be brought about by a wide range of causes.

Genetic Research on the Causes of Lactose Tolerance

Lactose intolerance seems to be on the rise, and it has recently become quite common to find the cause for this under discussion. For some reason this has led to widespread condemnation of milk in general. The most popular form of this trend takes the following line of attack: milk is a product intended by nature to be consumed by helpless infants. Mammals produce milk for their own young. Milk is not intended for the young of another animal or for adult members of the species.

Extreme versions of this position maintain that nobody over the age of two should drink milk, and no animal, including humans, should drink the milk of another animal. To support this position, advocates point out that no animal in the wild drinks any milk other than that produced by its own mother, and even that only when it is an infant.

Okay, so that means that Romulus and Remus were probably in mortal danger of dying of lactose intolerance when that She-Wolf suckled them!

But, seriously, what is the scientific evidence? Researchers theorize that “lasctase persistence”, meaning the presence of the enzyme lactase in the gut after a child is weaned, is a relatively new trait in adult humans.

In an article by Edward Hollox, in The European Journal of Human Genetics “Genetics of Lactase persistence; fresh lessons in the history of milk drinking(2005) 13, 267-269, the following rationale is given: “In humans, epidemiological analysis has shown that the cultural development of dairying preceded selection for lactase persistence.” In other words, first we started drinking milk, and only later we began to tolerate it. How realistic a scenario is that?

Now if he had said that first we began to herd ruminants for meat, and later we gradually started drinking their milk, then it might have made a certain amount of sense that there would have been a selective advantage to being able to tolerate milk as well as eat meat. But, according to Hollox, the development of dairying came first, and then there was a genetic selection for lactase persistence. This would mean that generations of humans would have milked goats and cattle and other milk givers, drinking the milk and getting sick for hundreds and maybe thousands of years, before finally some of their descendants could stomach it? Why would they keep drinking it, if it made them sick? Isn’t it more likely that people discovered that milk was good to drink, and then they developed dairying? In which case, lactase persistence must have preceded dairying.

According to Hollox, a genetic mutation accounting for persistence of the enzyme lactase in adult Europeans has been identified, and another, separate genetic mutation allowing for lactase persistence is found among Africans.

Asians are not mentioned. But it was in Asia, in Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, where wide-scale agriculture was developed about 10,000 years ago. At that time, Europeans were still savages.

Historical Evidence on Milk Consumption

Canaan is described in the Old Testament as the land of milk and honey. This was supposed to be a good thing. In ancient writings milk is always spoken of highly. It was a calorie dense food, and the ancients appreciated it as such.

In the book of Judges, the general of the Canaanite army, Sisra, fleeing from the onslought of Barak, found shelter in the tent of Ya’el, the wife of Hever the Kenite. She offered him milk and a place to sleep. Later, she drove a stake through his skull. I suppose we could argue that giving him milk was part of Ya’el’s overall plan to kill Sisra. However, that’s not how it was intended. He asked for water. She gave him milk. She is praised for her generosity. She was a good hostess, up until the point when she rammed a tent stake through his skull. (Judges 4:19-21).

This story is told twice in succeeding chapters of the Book of Judges: once in prose and a second time in poetry. In the poetic version, she also offered him butter. (Judges :25).

In the Baghavad Gita, ghi, or clarified butter, is seen as the utmost in luxury foods, fit for the gods, but undoubtedly consumed by men, too.

Did any of these people suffer from the inability to digest milk or dairy products? There is no indication that they did.

Leprosy and epilepsy are mentioned in the Bible. Lactose intolerance is not.

Do Snakes Drink Milk?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=t_TESL0CKqc%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26start%3D

Comparative Evidence on Milk Consumption

We probably all have experiences from our own life, or stories from our grandparents’ era, that bely some of the current claims about milk. For instance, it’s suggested that we become lactose intolerant over time, but that we come into the world as infants completely able to digest milk. However, we all know that you can’t give a newborn kitten or a newborn human baby straight cow’s milk. They can’t digest it. That’s why baby formula had to be carefully developed. Prior to its invention, goat’s milk was used for infants who had no mother to suckle them, if a wet nurse could not be found.

A baby kitten will die if fed on cow’s milk, but an adult cat can drink it. A human newborn can’t be given cow’s milk, but an older child or adult can. The problem with cow’s milk thoughout history was not that the enzyme lactase was present in infancy and disappeared as we matured. The problem was that babies couldn’t tolerate cow’s milk, but as soon as they were able to transition to solids, all animals, including humans, could drink cow’s milk in addition to eating other foods. When dairying was first introduced into our culture, it was not in order to feed babies. It was for adults.

Then there is the argument that all other animals besides humans don’t drink milk beyond infancy. That’s not true. My dog Teyman drinks milk. Bow, my chimpanzee son, drinks milk. If lactase persistence were a genetic innovation selected for by a dairy culture that has lasted 10,000 years, how would you account for that?

Why don’t other adult mammals drink milk in the wild? It’s not because of the inability to digest it. It’s because other animals haven’t domesticated cows! If you give them milk, they will drink it.

In India, today, many people still believe that snakes drink milk. Snake charmers claim that this is what they feed their snakes. I’ve also seen the argument confidently made that this can’t possibly be true, because snakes are reptiles, and only mammals drink milk.

I don’t know whether snakes drink milk. I do know that the argument that they could not drink milk because they are not mammals is completely unconvincing. We are not insects, and yet we eat honey!

The Evolution of the Mammary Gland

All flesh is kin. All animals on this planet are related. Life emerged only once. The building blocks of life are the same, regardless of the multitude of differences between and among different organisms. The common fruitfly has a very similar genetic structure to our own. Many different animals can subsist on the same foods, because we all use the same basic nutrients: fats, proteins and carbohydrates.

The milk-producing gland in mammals developed from non-mammalian sources. According to the wikipedia, the immediate ancestors of modern mammals were similar to monotremes like the platypus. They produced a milk-like substance from glands on the surface of their skin (but with no nipple) for their young to drink after hatching from eggs. The idea that only mammals drink milk is unfounded.

Milk became the food of infant mammals because the non-mammalian ancestors of mammals were already secreting milk.

So do snakes drink milk? Who knows. It depends on who you believe, the snake charmers or the nutritionists. Neither group is known for complete truthfulness. If I had to bet, my money would be on the snake charmers, because at least they know something about snakes.

Modern Production and Preparation of Milk

There is such a thing as lactose intolerance, and some people do suffer from it. To find out if you are one of those people, there is a medical test that you can take. However, the claim that tolerance of lactose is a relatively new trait in humans is not particularly convincing. All the evidence points to the idea that we were able to drink milk long before we began keeping cows. It seems more likely that lactose intolerance is a disease of recent origin.

Also, not everybody who experiences indigestion after drinking milk is lactose intolerant. In many cases, lactose has nothing to do with it. You could be reacting to the processing that modern milk undergoes before it is marketed at the grocery store.

Milk is pasteurized before it is marketed. Pasteurization destroys harmful microbes in perishable food products using heat, without destroying the food itself. In addition to pasteurization, milk undergoes homogenization in order to keep fat from separating out. These processes destroy some of the nutrients present in milk. Some vitamins are then artficially re-introduced into the milk we drink, sometimes in higher quantities than what was there to begin with. For some people, these artificial vitamin additives are highly irritating. This can account for some of the difficulty that modern man has digesting milk. These are problems that we don’t experience with raw milk, straight from the cow.

Conclusion

As I mentioned before, I don’t drink a lot of milk, because it doesn’t taste that good to me. My daughter likes milk, and sometimes, when I forget to offer it to her, she asks for milk. It always surprises me when she prefers milk to lemonade. However, I honor her preference and I let her have as much milk as she wants.

I don’t force anybody to drink milk. I think that our own appetites are a good indication of how much we should have. I never supply Bow with milk as a matter of course, because milk is not a normal part of the chimp diet. However, when he specifically asks for milk, I let him drink it. He never experiences any problem digesting the milk that he drinks. He also doesn’t ask for it as often as my daughter does.

While all animals have the same general use for all nutrients, there are also significant differences from one person to the next. We should honor those differences and understand that what is an adequate amount of milk for one person may be inadequate for another or excessive for a third individual.

I know that at one time in America children were forced to drink a great deal more milk than they wanted to, because their parents believed it was good for them. This caused a lot of damage, including obesity and anti-milk sentiment in the following generation of adults. Forcing a child to consume a food he doesn’t like usually backfires.

How much milk and dairy products you choose to consume is up to you. If you don’t like milk, then by all means don’t drink it. If it makes you feel sick, don’t drink it. It’s possible to get all your nutritional needs met without consuming dairy. However, we don’t have to declare milk as a dangerous substance or forget the entire course of history concerning milk consumption by humans and other animals in order to make that choice.

Milk is good food. We as humans have a long history with milk consumption. It is one of the many foods that we are capable of consuming to good effect. We don’t have to have it every day, but it’s good to keep that option open.

(c) 2008 Aya Katz

Posted in PubWages Staff | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pronatalism: Interviews with Malcolm Collins

Posted on July 28, 2024 by Aya Katz

WHAT IS PRONATALISM?

If birth rates continue to fall at the current trajectory, most industrialized nations will face population collapse within five generations. Pronatalism is a movement that aims to lessen the effect of this imminent collapse by fostering reproductive rates that are well above replacement levels. According to Simone and Malcolm Collins, of Pronatalism.org, falling fertility rates do not have an “organic floor.” This means that population collapse will not create a course correction on its own. Populations headed toward extinction face a turning point past which there may be no return.

The first of two interviews with Malcolm Collins

Rather than offering coercive measures to prevent the imminent population collapse, the Pronatalist movement seeks to encourage anyone who genuinely wants to have children to do so, with creative solutions for child care, education and intellectual tools to resist the “urban monoculture”, whose goal seems to be to render all who join it infertile. The Pronatalist movement welcomes ethnic and cultural diversity and wants to foster a pluralistic society.

Using the most modern reproductive methods available, including genetic screening and IVF, the Collinses try to ensure a selective process that minimizes disease and disability. Since the current culture selects against higher education and intellectual ability — fertility is highest in those portions of the population without a college education — there is an expectation that within seventy-five years the IQ of the urbanized population may drop by one standard deviation. Natural selection is operating against intellectual ability in the general population, while the pronatalists use genetic screening to optimize health and intelligence in their own offspring.

Following the example of groups most resistant to the urban monoculture, like the Amish and Hasidic Jews, the Collinses are creating a culture and religion that will help their children resist the pressures that are bringing down fertility rates in most industrialized countries. However, instead of turning their back on technology, like the Amish, the Pronatalists are embracing the latest technology and even hope to propel their descendants into outer space, to colonize the universe and escape the limitations of our home planet.

Much of this sounds like science fiction. However, today’s technological reality is yesterday’s science fiction. It will be interesting to see what the Pronatalists may achieve.

Related Links

Pronatalist.org

The Pragmatist Foundation

Posted in Books and Authors, Child Rearing, Family, Opinion Pieces and Editorials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Evolution of Selfishness

Posted on March 24, 2024 by Aya Katz

The Evolution of Selfishness

Updated on July 10, 2009

Aya Katz profile image

Aya Katz  

Against Idleness and Mischief by Isaac Watts

How doth the little busy Bee
Improve each shining Hour,
And gather Honey all the day
From every opening Flower!

How skilfully she builds her Cell!
How neat she spreads the Wax!
And labours hard to store it well
With the sweet Food she makes.

How doth the little busy Bee
Improve each shining Hour,
And gather Honey all the day
From every opening Flower!

How doth the little honey bee
In self-defense excel!
She gives her life for one small sting
Yet hath she spent it well!

Children in the 18th and 19th centuries were expected to memorize the poem Against Idleness and Mischief by Isaac Watts and to emulate the selflessness of the honey bee. The cloying sweetness of the self-sacrificing worker bee was irritating to Lewis Carroll, who wrote this parody concerning a more predatory and self-interested species:

How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale.

How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
and welcomes little fishies in
With gently smiling jaws.

Of course, the Lewis Caroll poem misses the point. The crocodile in his parody is exploiting other animals — not crocodiles. It is the altruism of the honey bee in her attitude to her fellow bees that inspires humans to long for a brotherhood of man — a spirit of all for one and one for all similar to the creed of the three musqueteers and a sharing of resources sometimes known as socialism.

Individual bee collecting pollen on behalf of the entire hive

Image Credit: Wikipedia
Image Credit: Wikipedia

Against Idleness and Mischief — last two stanzas

In Works of Labour or of Skill
I would be busy too:
For Satan finds some Mischief still
For idle Hands to do.

In Books, or Work, or healthful Play
Let my first Years be past,
That I may give for every Day
Some good account at last.

Wikipedia entry on bees

Throughout recorded history, rulers, theologians, philosophers and teachers have tried to instill the unselfishness of the honey bee into human populations. If we all behaved like bees, it has been argued, then we could pool our resources and no one need ever be hungry. The strong would protect the weak, and the young would shelter the aged. However, true unselfishness, as manifest in the apiary, does not actually work this way. Truly unselfish living means not overstaying your welcome:

  • each honey bee lives only so long as it is useful to the hive and is discarded as soon as it no longer serves.
  • honey bees are expected to commit suicide in the service of the hive by stinging any perceived threat and dying in the process
  • shirkers — or anyone too sick or weak to keep working — are promptly executed by enforcer honey bees
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lE-8QuBDkkw%3Fwmode%3Dtransparent%26start%3D

Queen Bee and Attendants

Image Credit: The Wikipedia
Image Credit: The Wikipedia

The Mother of All Bees

Why aren’t honey bees more selfish? Why do individual bees not consider their own survival as more important than the survival of the hive?

The answer is simple: there is no mechanism of natural selection to favor the reproductive success of selfish bees within the hive. (There is, however, a mechanism that allows rogue bees to leave the hive and become independent — more on that below.)

Individual honey bees within the hive do not produce and rear their own young. Reproduction is a collective undertaking. If a honey bee behaves in a more selfish way — eating more honey than it produces when doing so jeopardizes the success of the hive, the hive may perish because of it, and the genetic traits that might have led to this behavior are not going to be replicated. If a bee behaves in a way that serves the purposes of the hive, then the hive is more likely to prosper, and more bees of this sort will be produced in the future.

Honey bees behave like collective entities, because they reproduce and rear young collectively. Nature brings selective pressure to bear on organisms based on reproductive success. That is why natural selection operates upon the hive as a whole, and not on individual bees.

This is also why honey bees are not individuals in the more colloquial sense of that word.

Bees and Communication

Self-Awareness in the Wikipedia

Honey bees have complex social organization and they are even able to share information with one another about the location of good sources of pollen. Despite this, there is no reason to believe that bees are self-aware.

One of the little understood aspects of communication is that it is not necessary to understand the difference between “self” and “other” in order to transfer information from one being to another. We do not need a theory of mind in order to decode or encode information.

While a theory of mind is useful if you are planning to deceive another individual, it is of no use whatever when all are working cooperatively at predetermined tasks and when the motivation for completing the task is completely internal.

Honey bees are motivated to work by an internal compulsion. A bee that does not have this compulsion is defective and is discarded by the hive. Sometimes the bees who are responsible for killing a defective worker are called “Enforcers”, but their job is not to motivate workers by fear of punishment. Defective workers are eliminated in the same way that a defective part is replaced in a machine.

Eusocial Insects

  • The Mighty Bugs
    Since basically, everyone living in Florida, outside of those smack dab on the beach, are all walking on the skeletons of swampland — which means many things, but most of all — its all about how we are…

Most animals carry any surplus they have acquired on their person in the form of fat, to be consumed later during leaner times. Bees produce a tangible surplus outside their person — honey — and this makes them easy prey to other species who would enslave them.

When humans domesticated honey bees, they exploited the social organization of the bee to serve their own ends. If bees were not already in the habit of deferring gratification and creating a surplus, they would not be such easy targets for exploitation by humans.

However, even exploiters have got to take into consideration the basic needs of the population they are enslaving. A bee keeper who takes all the honey and leaves none for the hive to winter on will find that he has no bees come spring.

Langstroth’s Hive and the Honey-bee

Honey bees are an example of “eusocial insects”. Eusocial insects include wasps and ants. What they all have in common is the following:

  • the creation of a food surplus outside their own bodies
  • specialized roles for different members of the group
  • collective reproduction and child-rearing
  • a high degree of genetic uniformity within the group

Non-social bees

Most insects are not eusocial, and in fact, not all bees are! An example of a non-social bee sub-species is the “cuckoo bumble bee”. This particular sub-type of bumblebee has lost the ability to gather pollen. All female cuckoo bumblebees reproduce their own young, and there are no specialized roles among the cuckoo bumblebees.The alkali bee (Nomia melanderi Cockerell) is a non-social ground-nesting bee that has been extensively used to pollinate alfalfa. Large populations of such bees can exist side by side and yet not work cooperatively. Each has its own nest, gathers its own pollen, and produces its own young.

It seems that just as eusocial insects depend on a surplus, specialized roles and collective reproduction, those who give up the creation of a  large surplus also discard specialized roles and collective breeding.

Solitary Bees

Why is it that when we think of bees, we automatically tend to think of the eusocial ones? The answer is obvious: because of the surplus! We crave honey. Individualist bees are good pollinators, but they don’t make much honey. Therefore, they are less likely to be exploited and enslaved.

Individualist bees are not enslaved by humans precisely because they do not allow other bees to enslave them. This is something to keep in mind when thinking about our own social organization.

So, which came first, solitary bees or eusocial ones? This is the sort of chicken and egg question that will be answered differently depending on your context.

If read in a broad context, the answer will be “solitary insects came first, so a pre-bee would have been asocial.” Read in a finer context, the answer may be: “eusocial bees are the precursors of solitary bees, because the first actual bees were eusocial. Pre-bees don’t count.”

If we want to see the big picture, though, the answer is: it comes in cycles.

The Cyclical Social Evolution of Bees

pre-bees ==>(communal)==> eusocial bees ==> (communal) ==> solitary bees

Genetically Identical Bees can have Different Social Structure

A difference in social organization precedes genetic differentiation between groups of bees. First they behave differently and only later, with time, do genetic differences between different populations begin to appear.

Genetically identical bees have been found living side by side in the same physical environment, with one group engaged in egalitarian communal living (each female producing her own young, but sharing chores with other females) and the other living under a strict eusocial regime with a full caste system under the rule of a single fertile queen.

We see a lot of eusocial bees becoming solitary, but we seldom see this pattern of egalitarian communal living. Richards, von Wettburg and Rutgers discuss the reason for this in their article entitled A novel social polymorphism in a primitively eusocial bee: “Why then is the cooccurrence of communal and eusocial behavior in halictine bees so rare, especially given the large number of halictine reversions from eusocial to solitary behavior? A communal transition between solitary to eusocial colony cycles is likely to be unstable and should disappear rapidly. As in any type of society based on mutualism, communal societies are open to cheating by nonegalitarian members. If dominance hierarchies associated with reproductive skew are formed, the colony ceases to be communal. This means that attempts by some individuals to dominate reproduction will tend to promote either the evolution of caste-based societies (eusocial or semisocial) or the founding of solitary colonies in which females can simply avoid cheaters, so communal, casteless societies would tend to be transient.”

Are squirrels social? Yes and No!

Social Animals in the Wikipedia

Throughout nature the choice of social arrangement is dependent on a myriad of factors, but some rules hold firm. No animal has a society that can operate at a deficit. If the bee hive is not sufficiently productive to support the bees, then the colony collapses. Individual bees may or may not survive, but those who do survive make alternate social arrangements. Communal living pays off only so long as individual members of the commune are well served by the communal arrangement. Situations that encourage pilfering are replaced by situations where pilfering is deterred. Unstable arrangements are transient. Stable arrangements tend to last.

Some animals are social and others are solitary. Some animals care for their young until maturity, and some do not. Many insects, fish, and reptiles tend to lay eggs and then disappear, leaving their young to fend to themselves. Most birds and mammals take responsibility for young, providing them with food and shelter until they are mature. In some species, males and females form partnerships for the rearing of young. In other species, care for offspring falls primarily on one of the sexes and not the other. Many social animals live in groups and have dominance hierarchies.

Most forms of communal living found in nature revolve around reproductive and rearing strategies, and partnerships between and among members are dissolved if they do not serve this purpose well.

Some species of squirrels live communally and others do not. Factors that help to determine whether resources are pooled or kept separate may include the size of the habitat, the availability of food, and overall population density.

The Size of Prairie Vole Social Units is dependent on population density — not food supply

Chimpanzees cooperate with non-kin

Surplus and the provisioning of young among chimpanzees

Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. They are self-aware and highly intelligent. They use tools to harvest ants and to break nuts open. They live in social groups, and they have dominance hierarchies that determine status within the group. However, chimpanzees maintain no food surplus, and hence they have no well-defined caste system, specialized roles or forced labor. For this reason, it is also impossible to enslave a chimpanzee. Chimpanzees can cooperate with humans, but only if they choose to, (It is impossible to force a chimpanzee to do something he does not wish to do over the long run.) The same is not true of human beings.

No matter how low the status of a chimpanzee within the group, he never gives in! He may submit to a more dominant male to avoid a physical beating, but he never agrees that this dominant individual is his true superior. His head is bloodied, but unbowed! When the Alpha is too busy to notice, lesser males mate with females they have been forbidden to touch.

Because of the resilience of each individual chimpanzee and the resistance that they offer to any long term domination, the dominance hierarchies never become a eusocial caste system. For this very same reason, no surplus can ever be accumulated by a group of chimpanzees. “Saving some for later” is not part of their psychology or their mode of life.

In the literature on chimpanzees, the word “surplus” does appear, but it’s not used to mean creating food stocks now for a later use. It’s more like the present disposition of “food that is too much for one person to eat”. Females who break nuts will provision their children with excess nuts. Occasionally, all the males go and hunt together, and some of the meat is shared with females in return for sexual favors. But these instances of social cooperation are occasional rather than habitual. By and large, every chimpanzee picks his own fruit and eats it. Those higher in rank get to pick more and better fruit, but no adult chimpanzee picks fruit for any other adult chimpanzee. Each individual is responsible for supporting himself.

Mothers and Hunter-gatherers

  • Our Mothers’ Backs
    My daughter and I are watching Moribito, a Japanese animated series about a woman warrior charged with protecting a prince of the royal blood from the Mikado’s assassins. Balsa, the warrior, and Chagum, the…

Human beings who live in hunter gatherer groups enjoy a similar freedom to that of the chimpanzee. Hunter gatherers must carry their own weight, and that of their dependent children, and hence the accumulation of a surplus, whether in the form of worldly goods or even just body fat, is highly curtailed. Each hunter-gatherer adult is responsible for himself, and women must carry their small children on their backs. While there is a spirit of benevolence, and women sometimes help to care for other women’s children, this type of mutual help is occasional and not habitual,and every child has a special attachment to its own mother.

Because there is no surplus in hunter-gatherer societies, there isn’t any social stratification. Yes, there are leaders, but these leaders rule by personal charisma alone, and nobody is required to follow. Each individual can make decisions about his own food gathering and live with the consequences. If he chooses to follow a leader, it is only because he believes the leader is right in that particular instance.

Agriculture and Social Stratification

  • Bread: The First Fast Food
    What is a fast food? It is one that tastes good, can be prepared easily, is readily accessible to all, and that has a considerable shelf life. What is a fast food? It is a shortcut to acquiring nutrition. It…

With the invention of agriculture, humanity underwent a very big social upheaval. Food could now be stockpiled, and this surplus led directly to extreme social stratification. A caste system arose in almost every pocket of early civilization:

  • farmers/laborers
  • merchants/scholars
  • warriors
  • kings

Social pyramids that were wide at the bottom and met at a single point at the top were the rule throughout early history in most “civilized” places across the globe.

The “middle class” that everybody is clamoring to belong to today is the second social stratum that I listed above. Clearly, not everybody can be middle class, and still have it be the “middle class”!

We can see that the socially stratified civilization that sprang up with the discovery of agriculture shares some of the features of the social organization of honey bees:

  • creation of a surplus
  • specialized roles or castes

Notably absent is the feature of collective reproduction. (Yes, there were eunuchs and harems, but that trend never really took off!)

Because the reproductive function of “civilized” humans is not all that different from the reproductive function of chimpanzees and hunter-gatherers, human beings never lost their individualist streak completely.

However, religion and philosophy attempted to make up for this by creating moralities that condemned indviduals who rebelled against the system. We were told not to be “selfish”, and the hope was that we would internalize this commandment. The text of Isaac Watts’ poem “Against Idleness and Mischief” is just one of many examples of indoctrination in eusocial ideals.

Explanation of How the Size of the Group Protected is Balanced against Resources

  • Liberty and Justice: Why, How and for Whom?
    The following essay was not written by me. I am merely giving it a new place to appear and a new readership. This is an essay that my father wrote and published in 1989. It helps explain why some people…

Just as the evolution of the social behavior of bees goes through cycles, human social organization also cycles. Free market ideals that found their way into practice in 18th century America allowed many Americans to revert to a way of life more like that of the hunter-gatherer without giving up their surplus. Small farms and shops were run by individuals and families and balanced their books separately from others. The founding fathers chose a loose confederacy of states over a centralized government, and everything was based on the idea that each individual had a choice as to how to spend his time and how to invest in the future.

(Yes, there was slavery and Native Americans were dispossessed in the process of settling the wilderness. I am not condoning these practices. However, for those people in the “in-group” — many of whom had been peasants and serfs in Europe — this was an opportunity to stop being a worker bee and become a solitary bee, instead.)

Social trends in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have brought everything back toward collectivization and the ideals of Isaac Watt. The cycle looks something like this:

individual effort ==> surplus/castes ==> individually held surplus ==>redistribution

No doubt the cycling isn’t over, and after the current fling with collectivization, survivors will move toward more individualized social structures. In the meanwhile, many are really baffled by the connection between the conditions that bring about the rise of collectivization and the reasons people suffer when eusocial ideals are the norm.

Whenever a particular socialist regime is held up as an example of the failure of socialism, proponents of socialism will reply that their ideals were violated by the regime, so it doesn’t really count. National Socialism in Germany? That was a fascist regime, and fascism isn’t socialism. Soviet Russia? That was communism, and communism isn’t really socialism.

If you ask what the difference is between an actual instantiation of socialist ideals and the historical examples that we have, you will be told that true socialism is egalitarian. In other words, true socialism is like a commune where everybody works, and everybody is a full partner.

Communes are inherently unstable, but some have survived and prospered despite the odds. In order to thrive, communes require strict control over membership. Various religious orders, and not a few collective farms and kibbutzim have managed to function successfully, by retaining the right to expel unproductive members and by allowing disgruntled members to leave freely, along with their share upon dissolution. These mechanisms of self-selection and forcible ejection can sometimes work in a small group to keep a commune on track.

These are not mechanisms that can easily  be put into effect when an entire country becomes socialist. When a citizen leaves, he can’t take his share of the country with him. Forcible ejection of people who disagree with the current regime is not an option practiced by democratic societies. When a country goes socialist, none of the mechanisms for keeping a commune economically viable are available.

It then follows that strict central government, together with a caste system, are always put into effect. It is not the fault of the particular regime that this is done. It’s the nature of reality.

The Spartan State

Often in discussions of the most suitable social organization, arguments against socialism are made by reliance on the failings that come from our very humanity. It’s human nature, we tend to think, that prevents all the communitarian utopian experiments to fail. As it turns out, the reason egalitarian communes are short-lived is not a matter of human nature, or bee nature, or the nature of any particular organism. It’s just nature. Period.

It doesn’t matter whether the organisms in question are self-aware mammals or the most primitive of insects. It’s got nothing to do with intelligence or self-denial.

Large communes where not all members know one another intimately are unstable, because they are too susceptible to cheating. In order to enforce any rules concerning sharing of resources, or maintaining standards of productivity, it is necessary for each commune member to have a veto in the acceptance of new members as partners. It is also necessary for each partner to be able to dissolve the union and take away his own share, in the event that being in the commune no longer serves his long term goals. When a commune is small, all of this is possible, and the knowledge that it can be done keeps all partners in check. But in a commune so large that most members do not know most other members, it is not practical to give each member a veto. A hierarchical organization with strong central control is required.

For this reason, solitary bees can prosper and eusocial bees can prosper, but communal bees who pool resources but do not have a queen or a caste system, tend to be only a transient phenomenon. For the same reason, monarchies and dictatorships, and Spartan city states can prosper, and nations with citizens who each balance their own books can prosper, but communes that are a great deal larger than a family have been remarkably short-lived.

© 2009 Aya Katz

Posted in Animals and Pets, economics, Marketplace and Trading, Politics and Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Restatement of Commercial Chastity

Posted on January 19, 2024 by Aya Katz

This article was first published in the Inverted-A Horn in 2008.

Commercial Chastity Page 1
Commercial Chastity — Page 2
Commercial Chastity — Page 3
Commercial Chastity — Page 4
Commercial Chastity — 5
Commercial Chastity — 6
Commercial Chastity — 7

Commercial Chastity — 8
Commercial Chastity — 9

Commercial Chastity -10
Commercial Chastity — 11
Commercial Chastity — 12
Commercial Chastity — 13
Posted in Animals and Pets, Apes and Language, Opinion Pieces and Editorials | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Do Humans (or Chimps) have a Language Acquisition Device?

Posted on January 6, 2024 by Aya Katz
If you have the ability to use language, does this mean you have a LAD hardwired in your brain

When I started Project Bow, one of the purposes of showing that chimpanzees could learn language was to explore the question of the so-called language acquisition device. If a chimpanzee uses human language effectively to communicate, does this imply that there is a shared LAD between humans and chimpanzees? Or, alternatively, does it mean that neither chimpanzees nor humans have language hardwired in the brain. In the video below, I share two articles that address this issue.

Posted in Apes and Language | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why Use Statistics When Probability Will Do?

Posted on December 23, 2023 by Aya Katz
There are 22 letters in the Hebreew alphabet — It is Finite

Last night I gave a presentation on Project Bow, an ape language research project, and what issues concerning rigorous proof were presented by spontaneous and non-replicable results.

My Presentation on Project Bow and the Issues of Proof

Modern scientific research, especially in the social sciences, relies on aggregated data which shows replicable, statistically significant results. Many of the researchers in the social sciences don’t actually understand statistics and use programs that do all the calculations for them. However, they are convinced that without statistics, nothing can be proven. They forget the rules of simple logic and finite mathematics. They deny that a single example can falsify a rule, or that an outcome that is greater than chance under probability might be enough to prove a point

When it comes to linguistic data, once we are able to agree on a phonemic inventory for a language, the data is finite. There is a finite number of combinations of the phonemes that are possible. If the data is written, calculating the probabilty of any given form being chosen should be very easy, and it does not require higher order statistics. If the likelihood of the choice is far greater than chance, replication may not be necessary. This way, we can judge that someone speaks our language after a limited exchange, rather than by requiring constant repetition.

The findings of the Neogrammarians about the relatedness of the IndoEuropean languages were based on the idea that the similarities in the roots of these languages could not be due to chance. No statistics were necessary to establish that proof.

This begs the question: why use statistics when probability will do?

Posted in Apes and Language, Language, Opinion Pieces and Editorials, Topics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment