Small family size increases the wealth of descendants but reduces evolutionary success

Scientists have taken a step closer to solving one of life's mysteries – why family size generally falls as societies become richer.

have long puzzled over this because natural selection is expected to have selected for that try to maximise their . But in industrialised societies around the world, increasing wealth coincides with people deliberately limiting their family size – the so-called 'demographic transition'.

In a study published in : Biological Sciences, researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the Centre for Health Equity Studies (Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet) and UCL (University College London) reject a popular theory put forward to explain the phenomenon. This 'adaptive' hypothesis proposes that low fertility may boost evolutionary in the long term by increasing offspring wealth, which in turn eventually increases the number of long-term descendants because richer offspring end up having more children.

The researchers found that having a small number of children increased the economic success and social position of descendants across up to four generations, but reduced the total number of long-term descendants. They conclude that the decision to limit family size can be understood as a strategic choice to improve the socioeconomic success of children and grandchildren in modern societies, but this socioeconomic benefit does not necessarily translate into an evolutionary benefit.

The study indicates a conflict in modern societies between behaviours promoting social and economic benefits versus biological success. This contrasts with traditional populations in the developing world, where behaviours that promote wealth and social status usually lead individuals to leave behind more genetic descendants.

The researchers tested these hypotheses using data from the Uppsala Multigenerational Birth Cohort Study, which tracks 14,000 people born in Sweden in the early 1900s and all their descendants to the present day.

They measured the socioeconomic success of each generation by looking at their school marks, at whether they went to university and at their household income across adulthood. Reproductive success was assessed by survival to adulthood, marriage before age 40 (a proxy for 'mating success') and fertility (number of offspring up to 2009).

Among both male and female children in the original cohort, smaller family size and higher parental socioeconomic position were both associated with substantially higher school marks, university entrance and income. These effects were particularly large when low fertility and high socioeconomic status coincided, with the benefits of small family size being particularly marked in wealthier groups. Moreover, these advantages were in turn passed on to the grandchild and great-grandchild generations.

But contrary to the adaptive hypothesis, small family size and high parental wealth either did not affect reproductive success beyond the first generation of offspring or if anything showed a negative effect in subsequent generations.

Lead author Dr Anna Goodman, Research Fellow at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: "Under , you would expect organisms to use their resources to produce more genetic descendants, and so increase their Darwinian fitness. The demographic transition is a puzzle because at first sight it doesn't look like people are doing this. One adaptive explanation for the puzzle is that there exists a quantity-quality trade-off, such that having more children leads to those children being less able to reproduce in turn – i.e. higher 'quantity' leads to lower biological 'quality'. However our study found this quantity-quality trade off only applied to descendants' socioeconomic success, not their reproductive success."

Co-author Dr David Lawson, from the Department of Anthropology at UCL, said: "One of our most interesting findings is that being from an initially wealthy household makes the benefits of small family size even bigger. Poorer households in contrast have relatively little to gain by limiting fertility, perhaps because the success of their children is more determined by broader societal factors, rather than investment and inheritance from parents, which is in short supply. This observation suggests a certain economic rationality to fertility patterns in the modern world, since fertility rates often drop first and most substantially in the wealthier sections of society when populations undergo demographic transition."

Professor Ilona Koupil, from the Centre for Health Equity Studies (Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet) said: "It is important to note the equity implications of these findings. First, this research indicates that differences in family size may have lasting consequences on social inequalities. Second, this research provides evidence for the fact that people's educational levels and wealth not only affect schoolmarks and income in their children but also in their grandchildren and great-grandchildren. From a broader social policy perspective, our findings show that even in a country like Sweden with relatively low levels of inequality, we need policies that seek to equalise children's opportunities across families."

Explore further

Mothers trade child quantity for quality

More information: Low fertility increases descendant socioeconomic position but reduces long-term fitness in a modern post-industrial society. A Goodman, I Koupil, D Lawson. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1415
Citation: Small family size increases the wealth of descendants but reduces evolutionary success (2012, August 28) retrieved 22 October 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 28, 2012
I find the idea of "lasting consequences on social inequalities" very interesting. It seems to coincide with the top 1% of people having 50% of the wealth in the world. When in history did the rich start having fewer children, or is it strictly a modern cultural phenomenon?

A fried of mine once said, poor people have alot of kids because when you are poor there is nothing to do but ....reproduce.

It is suprising that having fewer children that live well would not lead to a lasting lineage. Perhaps wealthier offspring tend to be more selfish and do not want to extend themselves as much toward thier own offspring, or not have any children at all?

Personally I think we will evolve just fine without natural selection at work. Eventually we will overpopulate and have a big war, that will be our "natural" selection.

Aug 29, 2012
Maybe for the last century of "modern post-industrial society" but before many poor kids were fathered by rich folk--maidens made pregnant by the Lord (or his son) of the Manor.

And if based upon actual genetic rather than family tree pedigree data it also might not hold: most for example, sperm donators until the last two decades came from higher socioeconomic groups (ie medical students).

Aug 29, 2012
You're misunderstanding the article. It doesn't speak about one being rich but one's society.
In our occidental "rich societys" most people haven't much children because they haven't enough money to raise them unlike rich people...

Aug 29, 2012
Evolutionary biologists have long puzzled over this because natural selection is expected to have selected for organisms that try to maximise their reproduction

If that were exclusively true, we would bear litters (or worse). Other factors obviously contribute.

Anyways, in our modern society, we do things that skew. The price of failure, for instance, isn't death. We nurture children and adult members of society. We also live in an increasingly resource constrained environment, where a large family model doesn't confer the same survival benefits.

Aug 29, 2012

Here in America there are many, many people who cant afford to have children yet they have them on purpose, to get Welfare. The more children you have the more welfare you get. I just don't believe that poor people choose not to have children because they cant afford them. Maybe in other countries, but that is just not the case here in America.

Not having children because you cannot afford them requires forethought on the subject. What I see is that people just GET pregnant. They dont plan it, it just happens. I would even bet that 90 % of pregnancies in low income households are not on purpose.

Aug 29, 2012
Anda is correct, it is a result over the societies, those are the ones that can undergo a demographic transition. If you look at Rosling's Gapminder statistics (google!), there is less poor and less children born on average across the globe now. The "rich" nations have free markets, democracy and social medicine.

US is a "poor" rich nation, that is an outlier in many cases such as high religiosity, low health and low life length. If you look into it, it is correlated with a skew (partial absence) of social medicine (that translates to social insecurity as the basis for religiosity).

@ alfie_null:

There are several reproductive strategies, but "high r, low K" (low reproductive cost, low survival: large broods) and "low r, high K" (small broods) are two typical extremes. [ http://en.wikiped...n_theory ]

Oct 04, 2012
Well this exlains Rednecks non reds are richer and have small families while redknecks have webbed feet and deformed brains due diddling there siblings making bigger families.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more