what percentage of the male population...

dying off in america would have a significant impact on the country's birthrate (natality rate for you actuaries here)?

obviously females dying off would have a significant impact but what about the males?

lets say the male population means men from age 18-50.

I would answer "lemon sorbet" but that isn't one of the choices.

Quote: rudeboyoi

dying off in america would have a significant impact on the country's birthrate (natality rate for you actuaries here)?

If 100% of all American males died gradually, and all women remained alive, the birthrate would keep rising as fast as women could import sperm or men from other countries.

Since that wasn't the answer you wanted, try this one: If 100% of all males died gradually, then by the time the trend was spotted women would begin collecting sperm from males still alive and those just deceased. Indeed sperm can be harvested from a dead body soon after death takes palce. It's relatively straighforward, but I won't say what is inserted where to stimulate what nerves. Oh, sperm can stay frozen for decades at liquid nitrogen temps.

It's a rather popular theme in science fiction. For some reason freezing sperm and harvesting sperm from the dead is never done in such stories. Nor does anyone discover how to fuse genetic material from two ova into one embryo.

How about if all but one male?

then it would be like this dream I had once ; )

Kill off all males in Europe and the UK combined ... and you would only need seven men to donate sufficient sperm to maintain current birth rates.

Alot of this "child-free, not child-less" movement celebrating the joys of adult company and adult activities coupled with total avoidance of wet diapers, dirty faces and screaming brats might have an effect on the population.

I recall one commercial of a noisy screaming brat in a Scandinavian grocery store ... and then the commercial fades to a screen that simply displays the corporate name of a major manufacturer of contraceptive devices.

Someone on one of those Real Housewives shows commented that one teenage daughter having to take care of a dozen kids at a party was really "birth control education".

When Hmung families were brought to middle America after the Vietnam War no one told the women to stop having babies each and every year. Or at least none of them listened. They learned where the welfare office was located but never learned where the birth control clinics were located.

Some of us remember this movie from 1975 with a 20 something Don Johnson.

Don is initially elated at the prospect of being used for procreative services, because he assumes that the process will involve him having sex with numerous women, but this initial enthusiasm turns to horror when he is strapped to a table and a machine is used to extract his semen. Vic is told that when his sperm has impregnated 35 women, he will be sent to "the farm."

Of course, that is not the surprise ending.

Quote: pacomartin

Don is initially elated at the prospect of being used for procreative services, because he assumes that the process will involve him having sex with numerous women, but this initial enthusiasm turns to horror when he is strapped to a table and a machine is used to extract his semen.

That's the kind of unnecessary plot device that gives maggufins a bad name. Can't they just give him a cup, a magazine and some money?

It's like the stories of aliens doing awful things to "learn" about human anatomy and biology. Can't the superior intelligences in the flying saucers pick up a few books first? Can't they abduct some college professors at a medical school and talk to them?

Quote:

Vic is told that when his sperm has impregnated 35 women, he will be sent to "the farm."

Using in-vitro they could fertilize that many ova with two sessions from the luckless man. Of course, they probably need another needless and unnecessary plot device.

The Civil War killed a huge number of American males. The population seemed to bounce back pretty quickly once the peace settled in. Of course, large families were still the norm at the turn of the 20th century, so losing three out of 5 sons was not the end of a patriarchal family line.

Maybe this is just an urban legend, but somewhere I heard or read that after a major war, where a significant percentage of the men are killed, women give birth to more than 50% boys. The theory being that somehow the body knows about this shortage of men, and is trying to make up for it. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Quote: Wizard

Maybe this is just an urban legend, but somewhere I heard or read that after a major war, where a significant percentage of the men are killed, women give birth to more than 50% boys.

What is the "normal" birth ratio between boys and girls?

Biology is a lot messier than cards or dice <g> While normally men produce equal numbers of X and Y sperm, some do not, or not of equal quality. Also the mass of a Y sperm is a bit lower than that of an X one, due to the much smaller Y chromosome. This may not have much of an effect, but it's a distinct difference. Anyway, it may be than more than 50% boys is normal, say 50.2% or so.

Quote: Wizard

Maybe this is just an urban legend, but somewhere I heard or read that after a major war, where a significant percentage of the men are killed, women give birth to more than 50% boys. The theory being that somehow the body knows about this shortage of men, and is trying to make up for it. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Wiz would not the Social Security Administration have this info ?

Quote: Nareed

What is the "normal" birth ratio between boys and girls?

101 boys to 99 girls. My source is Social Security card applications, which I studied for my baby name research.

This is why when a friend is pregnant, and I make a bet on the gender, I always try to take a boy.

Quote: Wizard

101 boys to 99 girls. My source is Social Security card applications, which I studied for my baby name research.

How about that? My wild guess turned out right after all. :)

Many animals select sex of offspring based on availability of resources and skills of the mother. A mountain goat can raise a female more easily than protecting an adventuresome male, so the first born is usually a female. In reptiles, ground temperature (rainwater) affects sex of offspring.

In humans these fundamental influences are muted. Female humans respond to odors but not as markedly as animals. And the woman who uses birth control pills mutes this response even more. I would imagine human females still have vestiges of sex selection of offspring through awareness of resources.

I would look to birth data amongst the Hutterites where no pills are used and no deodorants are used to determine the ratio rather than trying to discern the ratio from the noise of confounding factors in our society. More males are likely born but females are still more likely to survive.

Quote: Wizard

Maybe this is just an urban legend, but somewhere I heard or read that after a major war, where a significant percentage of the men are killed, women give birth to more than 50% boys. The theory being that somehow the body knows about this shortage of men, and is trying to make up for it. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Confirmed. The referenced article in Popular Science describes a hypothesis for why this is so. If you are a male with more brothers than sisters, you are more likely to have more sons than daughters.

War kills men equally on both sides of this trait, but the families with multiple brothers who go off to war are more likely to return multiple males who will breed.... more male heirs. Conversely, the family with only one male and a bunch of sisters is likely to lose him, and the girls he would have bred.

Eventually the numbers come back to balance due to higher male mortality, and smaller families due to birth control

Quote: pacomartin

Some of us remember this movie from 1975 with a 20 something Don Johnson.

Speaking of Don Johnson, it was widely reported
that ol Don was blessed with extraordinary equipment
in the 'Johnson' dept, if you catch my drift.. Is that
off topic? Sorry...

Quote: Ayecarumba

War kills men equally on both sides of this trait, but the families with multiple brothers who go off to war are more likely to return multiple males who will breed.... more male heirs. Conversely, the family with only one male and a bunch of sisters is likely to lose him, and the girls he would have bred.

I still am having a hard time with this. Here is what the article says:

Quote: PopSci.com

How might this gene tip the baby balance after a war? Consider the legacy of two hypothetical men—let’s call them John and Rich. John has three sons, all of whom go off to fight, and one daughter, who does not. Rich has the opposite family structure: three daughters and one son. John is more likely to see multiple sons return from war alive—and with Y-leaning sperm. So they’ll produce more sons of their own. Rich is likely to lose his only son, which if alive, would have fathered girls to even out the sex ratio. The mechanism, Gellatly’s genetic model shows, shifts the sex ratio back to normal as the dip in male mortality recovers.

Source -- Why Does War Breed More Boys?

WHY is John likely to see multiple sons return alive yet Rich is likely to lose his only son? This seems to suggest that war does NOT kill on both sides equally, that soldiers with brothers are less likely to die in war. Is this because just having brothers trains them to fight better? I have two brothers and no sisters, and know I had my share of fights. Perhaps the brothers are in the same unit and look out for each other? Perhaps someone with only sisters is socialized to be more gentle and non-physical, which might get one killed in war.

Here is another idea. I heard once that one can get out of the draft if death would cause a family name to die out. This is obviously more likely to be the case in a family with lots of girls, who eventually will change their names upon marriage. Any truth to this?

Quote: Wizard

I heard once that one can get out of the draft if death would cause a family name to die out. This is obviously more likely to be the case in a family with lots of girls, who eventually will change their names upon marriage. Any truth to this?

The Sole Survivor Policy or DoD Directive 1315.15 "Special Separation Policies for Survivorship" describes a set of regulations in the U.S. military that are designed to protect members of a family from the draft or from combat duty if they have already lost family members in military service.

The need for the regulations first caught public attention after the five Sullivan brothers were all killed when the USS Juneau (CL-52) was sunk during World War II, and was enacted as law in 1948. No peacetime restriction was in place until 1964 during the Vietnam War; in 1971, Congress amended the law to include not only the sole surviving son or daughter but also any son or daughter who had a combat related death in the family. Since then, each branch of the military has made its own policies with regard to separating immediate family members

Quote: Wizard

WHY is John likely to see multiple sons return alive yet Rich is likely to lose his only son?

Consider it in a more extreme example: one family has 1 daughter plus 20 sons who go to war; the other has 20 daughters plus 1 son who goes to war. Which family is more likely to have multiple sons (or even one son) come home alive? Which is more likely to lose all of their sons in the war? Assume, as you did, that the war kills evenly on both sides.

Quote: Wizard

WHY is John likely to see multiple sons return alive yet Rich is likely to lose his only son?

Think of it as bets on a single spin of Roulette.

John bets black, red and zero, while Rich bets on red. Who's more likely to win one bet?

What it means is that John, sending three sons to war, has a better chance of ending with at least one son alive than Rich.

Of coruse other factors apply. In WWII five brothers named Sullivan all died when their ship was sunk. Indeed the US Navy has a ship named after them: USS The Sullivans.

Quote:

This seems to suggest that war does NOT kill on both sides equally,

It doesn't. If it did, then wars would almost always end in a draw. it's not that simple now, but WWI was a war that killed about equally on both sides. WWII wasn't. At first the Axis powers killed a lot more of their enemies. Later on the Allies gained the upper hand. Being able to destroy more of the enemy's force is one big thing that allows you to move forward.

In Desert Storm Iraqis died by the tens of thousands, while US and allied forces died by the hundreds. In Afghanistan the ratio isn't as extreme, but lots mroe Taliban and al Qaida are dead than US and NATO troops.

Anyway, all thsi tends to suggest the likelyhood of having a son or a daughter depends largely on the father, which means sex bias runs in families and in sperm. Of course sex is determined by sperm, but it would seem among some men, at least, X sperm are more able to fertilize an ova. In other men neither has an adavntage, perhaps. And in yet other Y sperm are more dominant.

I wonder if there are studies involving women. Ova may be mroe receptive to one sort of sperm (unlikely), or the uterine environment might favor a type of sperm over others. Even the immune system might kick in for all I know.

Quote: Doc

Consider it in a more extreme example: one family has 1 daughter plus 20 sons who go to war; the other has 20 daughters plus 1 son who goes to war. Which family is more likely to have multiple sons (or even one son) come home alive? Which is more likely to lose all of their sons in the war? Assume, as you did, that the war kills evenly on both sides.

Obviously family 1. However the article said, "John is more likely to see multiple sons return from war alive." I interpreted that the pr(sons return alive>1.5) > 0.5. In other words a mortality rate of less than 50%. Meanwhile the brother-less solider had a probability of greater than 50% of being killed.

Let's look at this example. Suppose there is a war and afterward the following men return home:

Type A: 600,000 total, likely to produce 75% boys.
Type B: 400,000 total, likely to produce 25% boys.

Let's say that each man fathers two children. In one generation we will have the following types of children:

Type A boy: 600,000*0.75*2 = 900,000
Type B boy: 400,000*0.25*2 = 200,000
Type A girl: 600,000*0.25*2 = 300,000
Type B girl: 400,000*0.75*2 = 600,000

Ratio of boys = 55%.

I guess it doesn't matter what type the girl is, since she doesn't pass on that gene. Right?

Let's say that the 900,000 girls randomly choose a mate. Here will be the mating pairs one generation after the war:

Type A boy & type A girl: 300,000*(9/11) = 245,455
Type A boy & type B girl: 600,000*(9/11) = 490,909
Type B boy & type A girl: 300,000*(2/11) = 54,545
Type B boy & type B girl: 600,000*(2/11) = 109,091

Again, let's say 2 kids per family. Here will be the breakdown of kids two generations after the war. This assumes that the male only passes on the A/B gene:

Type A boy & type A girl:

Type A boys: 245,455*2*0.75 = 368,183
Type A girls: 245,455*2*0.25 = 122,728

Type A boy & type B girl:

Type A boys: 490,909*2*0.75 = 736,364
Type B girls: 490,900*2*0.25 = 245,455

Type B boy & type A girl:

Type B boys: 54,545*2*0.25 = 27,273
Type B girls: 54,545*2*0.75 = 81,818

Type B boy & type B girl:

Type B boys: 109,091*2*0.75 = 163,637
Type B girls: 109,091*2*0.25 = 54,546

Total boys = 1,295,457
Total girls = 504,547

Ratio of boys = 72%.

So, you can see the boy-producing gene is not balancing off, but spreading like a contagion. It won't take long before almost every kid is a boy.

There must be something else at play we are not seeing.

Then again, I don't dispute that there is a positive correlation in gender among siblings. If a woman is pregnant, and you can bet on the gender of the child, first try to go with the gender in the majority of the father's previous children.

Maybe it is just a coincidence, but my family tree is just full of men. Perhaps this is the key, but many of the men in my family never have any children. On my male side of the family I have to go all the way to a third cousin, I believe, to find another male Shackleford of child bearing age, not counting my own brothers. Could it be that the boy-producing men also just father fewer kids?

I don't think the article intends that individual soldiers from families with more boys have a higher probability of survival in combat than soldiers with only sisters (although this may be true). I think the author's intent is that the incidence of mortality is randomly distributed, and that the family sending multiple sons will have a better chance of at least one of them returning, whereas the family that has only one to lose will either get one or none back.

Also, I don't think the author recognized any genetic participation in this phenomenon by the females, as the 'more sons' gene is supposedly linked to the Y chromosome which is carried by the male.

The numbers do get way out of whack when there isn't a war to cull the population. I assume a number of the single males will die or kill each other before they mate. Perhaps the growing proportion of single males in a peacetime population makes it more likely that a cross border shooting conflict will arise.

I assume the author would cite some increased attraction or higher ratio of successful mating by males with more sisters in a post war environment to bring the population back into balance. Artificial control, both on family size and gender, has had more to do with current family composition today, than in 1949. I suspect this is why there are less Shacklefords today, rather than "probably a boy" males producing less offspring (but I dont' have any evidence either way.)

The generational effects of the "One Child" policy in China are interesting, as an artificial bump in the proportion of males to females makes it a "buyer's market" for the women. Conversely, the growing proportion of hispanics in the USA is already causing conflict with the declining and aging anglo majority.

Quote: Ayecarumba

The numbers do get way out of whack when there isn't a war to cull the population. I assume a number of the single males will die or kill each other before they mate. Perhaps the growing proportion of single males in a peacetime population makes it more likely that a cross border shooting conflict will arise.

Are you sure? I think Argentina has not been to war, other than the Falklands, which had very few casualties, in a long time. I have not heard anything about their male-female ratio being out of whack. I also tend to doubt their male homicide rate is high enough to significantly affect the the balance either. I have no statistics on any of this, but you never seem to hear about a glut of men in countries that tend to avoid trouble.

Maybe I'm missing something, but in my opinion the article did not make its case. I tend to lean towards the theory that men with sisters are more likely to reproduce.

Quote: Wizard

... the article said, "John is more likely to see multiple sons return from war alive." I interpreted that the pr(sons return alive>1.5) > 0.5. In other words a mortality rate of less than 50%.

Difference of interpretation. I interpreted "more likely to see multiple sons return" to mean that John's likelihood of that outcome was greater than Rich's likelihood.

Quote: Wizard

Maybe it is just a coincidence, but my family tree is just full of men.

Just as another data point, following my own paternal line, my great-grandfather had two daughters and one son. My grandfather had no daughters and one son. My father had no daughters and three sons. Together, my two brothers and I had one daughter and two sons. I don't see a clear pattern.

Quote: Nareed

Think of it as bets on a single spin of Roulette.

John bets black, red and zero, while Rich bets on red. Who's more likely to win one bet?

What it means is that John, sending three sons to war, has a better chance of ending with at least one son alive than Rich.

Of coruse other factors apply. In WWII five brothers named Sullivan all died when their ship was sunk. Indeed the US Navy has a ship named after them: USS The Sullivans.

It doesn't. If it did, then wars would almost always end in a draw. it's not that simple now, but WWI was a war that killed about equally on both sides. WWII wasn't. At first the Axis powers killed a lot more of their enemies. Later on the Allies gained the upper hand. Being able to destroy more of the enemy's force is one big thing that allows you to move forward.

The Allies had a much higher casualty count than the Axis throughout the war. This is mostly due to the huge losses the Russians took throughout the war on the Eastern front... and they had the ability to replace them. The Germans didn't, but had superior tactics and equipment even in defeat.

In some wars, destroying even some of the enemy force is enough to win the war, even if your losses are higher (Vietnam was lost for the Americans after the failed Tet Offensive... even though that was a disaster for the Viet Cong, body bags arriving home knocked out the American publics will to fight... though once the American's withdrew, the conventional war was one-sided and massive material loss by the South).

In fact, that was pretty much the tactic for the South in the American Civil War... if they could inflict enough losses and defeats on the North at crucial times, they hoped that the Peace Democrats would gain the upper hand in the Union, and they'd let the CSA exist. The CSA had about half the losses of the Union. They couldn't replace their soldiers and material as easily as the industrial and populated north.

It's a similar story in the American War Independence. The Continental Army lost much more men than the British Army (not least as they were untrained and raw recruits) but won their independence as they just kept coming, while the British Army was on one end of a supply line across the Atlantic, and slowly losing support in the colonies.

In short, losses are important, but the ability to both replace them, and the effect those losses have on moral are far more important.

(Historian John Huddleston estimates the death toll at ten percent of all Northern males 20–45 years of age, and 30 percent of all Southern white males aged 18–40.... stolen from Wikipedia).

Quote: Doc

Difference of interpretation. I interpreted "more likely to see multiple sons return" to mean that John's likelihood of that outcome was greater than Rich's likelihood.

But that is obvious. Rich had only one son, so the probability of getting two or more back from the war is zero.

Somewhere there is a missing piece to this puzzle.

Quote: thecesspit

The Allies had a much higher casualty count than the Axis throughout the war. This is mostly due to the huge losses the Russians took throughout the war on the Eastern front... and they had the ability to replace them. The Germans didn't, but had superior tactics and equipment even in defeat.

The Russians traditionally trade bodies and land for time during war. Come late Fall and Winter and most enemies are stopped by mud and snow.

Quote:

In short, losses are important, but the ability to both replace them, and the effect those losses have on moral are far more important.

Ok. But my main point stands: people don't die in equal numbers on both sides of a war.

Quote: Nareed

The Russians traditionally trade bodies and land for time during war. Come late Fall and Winter and most enemies are stopped by mud and snow.

Yep, and as in WW2, the ability to mobilize. General Winter was key for the Russians stopping the German advance in '41... which was the only severe winter of the Eastern Front (not that normal winter in the middle of Russia is a barrel of laughs...). Same in 1812... the Russian Winter was particularly severe that year.

Quote:

Ok. But my main point stands: people don't die in equal numbers on both sides of a war.

Indeed. Your point is indeed correct.

Quote: thecesspit

Yep, and as in WW2, the ability to mobilize. General Winter was key for the Russians stopping the German advance in '41...

That and the fact the nazis delayed their offensive into the USSR to bail out Mussolini in Greece.

Quote:

Indeed. Your point is indeed correct.

Well, I amdit I made a mistake, too. I forgot that armies use what they have. the Russians, mostly, have numbers, so they use that (in WWII they had a better tank than the nazis at the start, too). The Germans lacked numbers, so they ahd to amke up for that another way. They had advanced weaponry in many respects, like the Stuka dive bomber and alter on their tanks were the best available.

Quote: Wizard

Are you sure? I think Argentina has not been to war, other than the Falklands, which had very few casualties, in a long time. I have not heard anything about their male-female ratio being out of whack. I also tend to doubt their male homicide rate is high enough to significantly affect the the balance either. I have no statistics on any of this, but you never seem to hear about a glut of men in countries that tend to avoid trouble.

Maybe I'm missing something, but in my opinion the article did not make its case. I tend to lean towards the theory that men with sisters are more likely to reproduce.

It is entirely speculation on my part. I don't have any demographics or birth records to back anything up. Did the early polygamist Mormons have more sons than daughters? I think that might be a solid data point.

However, as for Argentina, I believe the author would posit that the increase in male births is more prononced immediately after the soldiers return from war, then eventually levels out due to other factors. Male's higher mortaility, and shorter lifespans may keep the higher relative birthrate in check. As the population of males increases relative to the females in an area, more males will either have to remain single and not produce offspring (like urban areas of China), or they will migrate to areas with higher populations of females, evening things out.


Off track for a bit:
Hmm, Dick Van Patten had three sons and five daughters on "Eight is Enough". I wonder if his character had more sisters than brothers?

Quote: Wizard

I tend to lean towards the theory that men with sisters are more likely to reproduce.

What might it be about men with sisters that makes them more likely to reproduce? Traditional caveman stereotyping would assume men with brothers would have more pronounced masculine traits, which females find attractive in potential mates. Conversely, men who grew up in female dominated households would have stronger feminine traits, and be less attractive as potential mates (when females in the population can afford to be choosey).

Quote: Wizard

Maybe this is just an urban legend, but somewhere I heard or read that after a major war, where a significant percentage of the men are killed, women give birth to more than 50% boys. The theory being that somehow the body knows about this shortage of men, and is trying to make up for it. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Alternate theory.
-- Predominate sex of offspring is influenced by the parent's heights relative to the population. Taller couples produce more male offspring.
-- Taller soldiers are more likely to survive a war and return home to breed, hence more male births. This is proven in records from the U.K. related to WWI and the period following, when almost one-third of the fighting age (15 - 40 years old) population of males were called to join the fray.

Quote: Nareed

That and the fact the nazis delayed their offensive into the USSR to bail out Mussolini in Greece.

You can argue that delay was due to the ability of the British to tie up Italians in the Northern Desert, and the airborne invasion of Crete taking so long as well. But yeah, the delay in the jumping off Barbarossa was in part due to Greece adventure, and also that the German High Command wasn't really prepared for a Russian war 1941 (they had suggested 1944 for the Eastern front to be opened), and the trade between Russia and Germany was still climbing. An early 1942 war would probably have suited Germany a lot better, but that pre-supposes Hitler was even competent at strategically. Plus the German Army even 1941 needed resources to keep mobilized. Resources they expected to find in the Ukraine...

Quote:

Well, I amdit I made a mistake, too. I forgot that armies use what they have. the Russians, mostly, have numbers, so they use that (in WWII they had a better tank than the nazis at the start, too). The Germans lacked numbers, so they ahd to amke up for that another way. They had advanced weaponry in many respects, like the Stuka dive bomber and alter on their tanks were the best available.

Yep, the Soviets tanks (T-34) were better than the Panzer II and the Panzer III, but they didn't use them as well, and armour crews weren't trained to operate semi-independently, so the Panzer II, while fragile, was in better hands.

Even by the end of the war, Soviet doctrine was for tight, organized teams, and sticking to the plan. This isn't too surprising... it takes a LOOOONGGG time to change the whole ethos of an army, even if that army has been beaten black and blue for a couple of years.

Quote: Ayecarumba

What might it be about men with sisters that makes them more likely to reproduce? Traditional caveman stereotyping would assume men with brothers would have more pronounced masculine traits, which females find attractive in potential mates. Conversely, men who grew up in female dominated households would have stronger feminine traits, and be less attractive as potential mates (when females in the population can afford to be choosey).

First, I'm not claiming this correlation, just saying if it were true it would explain the war/baby boy correlation. The reason I find it plausible is that men with sisters are going to understand women better. Through their sisters they will know what girls like and have less of a chance of shyness around women. Also the sister herself is a possible supply of girls to date, via her friends.

I also reject the idea that having sisters will cause men to be effeminate. As I wrote, they would see first hand what girls like -- the good manly characteristics. Without them, negative manly habits are likely to form. Like passing wind in public.

It would be nice to have a female perspective on this.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Taller soldiers are more likely to survive a war and return home to breed, hence more male births. This is proven in records from the U.K. related to WWI and the period following, when almost one-third of the fighting age (15 - 40 years old) population of males were called to join the fray.

I could buy that. But WHY are taller men having more girls? That article linked to a book titled Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, but the article doesn't say why that is true.

Quote: Wizard

But WHY are taller men having more girls? That article linked to a book titled Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, but the article doesn't say what that is true.

Actually, the article claims that a tall father AND mother will produce more MALE offspring. Perhaps tall women are not as attractive to men of either height extreme, so shorter women have more offspring producing more daughters? There may also be more short people than tall, so they could do it by sheer volume. Just guessing.

The question about the effect of growing up in a male or female sibling majority household is interesting. I'd bet most of the discussion board members are from households with majority brothers, even the female members.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I'd bet most of the discussion board members are from households with majority brothers, even the female members.

Why do you think that? For what it is worth I have 2 brothers and 0 sisters.

" I tend to lean towards the theory that men with sisters are more likely to reproduce. "
Especially in Tennessee. LOL

Quote: buzzpaff

Especially in Tennessee. LOL

Ooo! I hope we don't have any members from the volunteer state on the forum.

Quote: Wizard

Why do you think that? For what it is worth I have 2 brothers and 0 sisters.

The board members are pretty intelligent. Taller people tend to be more intelligent. Tall people tend to have tall parents. Tall parents tend to have more boy children than girl children.

Makes sense, no?

Quote: buzzpaff

" I tend to lean towards the theory that men with sisters are more likely to reproduce. "
Especially in Tennessee. LOL

You meant Arkansas.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Tall parents tend to have more boy children than girl children.

Makes sense, no?

All but that last part. I know there is that book claiming that, but I'd like to know why that is true, without having to buy the book.

Quote: Ayecarumba

Tall parents tend to have more boy children than girl children.

Makes sense, no?

Quote: Wizard

All but that last part. I know there is that book claiming that, but I'd like to know why that is true, without having to buy the book.

I haven't read the book, but my suspicion would be that there is a genetic connection between height and the ability of the male "Y" chromosome to succeed at conception. Perhaps there is something about the ova of tall females being more open to Y sperm, and/or tall males producing more Y's than X's? I'll check at the local library for a copy of the book.

My health care provider offers "genetic counseling" to couples as part of their prenatal care. When I first heard about this, I assumed it would be tips on avoiding substances that might cause DNA damage, avoiding microwaves, or cell phones, etc. Actually, it is a test to see if your fetus has any abnormal genes, and options for "terminating" the pregnancy. I know that this has already been used for pre-term gender selection, and I can easily see it moving to minor things like hair or eye color.

Quote: Ayecarumba

My health care provider offers "genetic counseling" to couples as part of their prenatal care. When I first heard about this, I assumed it would be tips on avoiding substances that might cause DNA damage, avoiding microwaves, or cell phones, etc. Actually, it is a test to see if your fetus has any abnormal genes, and options for "terminating" the pregnancy. I know that this has already been used for pre-term gender selection, and I can easily see it moving to minor things like hair or eye color.

Sex selection through abortion has been available through amnioscentesis tests for decades. Granted such tests were risky on the mother, but they were there. In China they've been used extensively thanks to the one-child policy. These days technicians can separate fetal cells from the motehr's blood, but the test is essentially the same. And of course today we can test for known genetic conditions.

It may indeed be used to select for eye and hair color. I don't see any way to prevent it, short of outlawing abortion.

I have always thought it should be easier to make a girl baby. I mean, after all, the pattern is laid right there for you to follow.

Quote: Nareed

It may indeed be used to select for eye and hair color. I don't see any way to prevent it, short of outlawing abortion.

Unfortunately, humanity always seems to have the ability to do something, before the wisdom to know whether or not doing it is a good idea.

Quote: Ayecarumba

I haven't read the book, but my suspicion would be that there is a genetic connection between height and the ability of the male "Y" chromosome to succeed at conception.

I'd be interested to see some evidence behind that. One of my neighbors is a fertility doctor. I keep hoping I bump into him to bother him with such questions, but no luck so far.