41:49 The "30% of women" being "missing" from East Asia is based on looking at Ming and Qing dynasty censuses, where there was a clearly large disparity between the number of reported men and women. While it's very likely a portion of this was due to infanticide, the current scholarly view is that a large portion of it was due to intentional underreporting of living women and girls, because it meant the reporting household had to pay less taxes. We know this is part of the cause because when underreporting was made a capital crime, the disparity tightens somewhat, although even then we have evidence of underreporting. Women and girls were underreported more than men and boys because (1) the male head of a household had to report himself, at a minimum, otherwise his household didn't exist (there were cases of households attempting this sort of evasion, e.g. by migrating, but this doesn't affect the gender ratio skew) and (2) children were more likely to be underreported than adults, but girls were especially underreported, because it was more likely that an unreported boy would be discovered, since (a) he was more "visible" (more likely to seek employment, interact with outsiders, etc.) and (b) it was likely he would grow up to start his own household, which would raise questions about where he came from (never having been reported before, which is to say, never having been taxed before)
@@Medivh73No, he's talking about his own book, "A Farewell to Alms," which he uses as the textbook for this class. It's 90% eugenicist nonsense rejected by most scholars, though, so I don't recommend it.
Mammalian breastfeeding is a contraceptive that is about as effective as typical (thought not ideal) condom usage for at least the first first year or two. You don't need hunter gatherer cultural customs to explain this kind of birth spacing; you see it in other animals too.
41:49 The "30% of women" being "missing" from East Asia is based on looking at Ming and Qing dynasty censuses, where there was a clearly large disparity between the number of reported men and women. While it's very likely a portion of this was due to infanticide, the current scholarly view is that a large portion of it was due to intentional underreporting of living women and girls, because it meant the reporting household had to pay less taxes. We know this is part of the cause because when underreporting was made a capital crime, the disparity tightens somewhat, although even then we have evidence of underreporting. Women and girls were underreported more than men and boys because (1) the male head of a household had to report himself, at a minimum, otherwise his household didn't exist (there were cases of households attempting this sort of evasion, e.g. by migrating, but this doesn't affect the gender ratio skew) and (2) children were more likely to be underreported than adults, but girls were especially underreported, because it was more likely that an unreported boy would be discovered, since (a) he was more "visible" (more likely to seek employment, interact with outsiders, etc.) and (b) it was likely he would grow up to start his own household, which would raise questions about where he came from (never having been reported before, which is to say, never having been taxed before)
This is a great lecture.
Still a great lecture
Thank you)
Which book is he talking about?
I believe that would be An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
@@Medivh73No, he's talking about his own book, "A Farewell to Alms," which he uses as the textbook for this class. It's 90% eugenicist nonsense rejected by most scholars, though, so I don't recommend it.
mind boggling shit
Mammalian breastfeeding is a contraceptive that is about as effective as typical (thought not ideal) condom usage for at least the first first year or two. You don't need hunter gatherer cultural customs to explain this kind of birth spacing; you see it in other animals too.