Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:04:25.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social Impact of Human Reproduction*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Alan S. Parkes
Alan S. Parkes
Affiliation:
Galton Foundation, London†
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Man is essentially a gregarious animal and is subject, therefore, to both biological and social pressures. As a result, almost everything hedoes has biosocial reper cussions. This is especially true of reproduction, which is a biological process with an overriding social impact. If human reproduction came to an end, so would the human race. By contrast the present unprecedented combination of a high repro ductive rate and a high survival rate is causing widespread concern. One may takethe view that mankind, by reason of its exploding numbers, is rushing to a Gadarene doom, or the opposite view that man has brains as well as gonads and will cope with his proliferation. In either case, one must admit that at the present time there is a population problem.

Type
Lecture
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 195 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © 1973, Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruce, H.M. (1959) An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature 184, 105.Google Scholar
Calhoun, J.B. (1962) Population density and social pathology. Scient. Am. 206 (February), 139Google Scholar
Crowcroft, P. (1966) Mice all over. Foulis, London.Google Scholar
Döring, G.K. (1962) Schwangenshaft und Gebart vor der Menarche. Dt. med. Wschr. 87, 2514.Google Scholar
Dublin, L.J. (1951) The Facts of Life from Birth to Death. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Escomol, E. (1939) La plus jeune mère du monde. Presse med. 47, 875.Google Scholar
Guttmacher, A.F. (1956) Factors affecting normal expectancy of conception. J. Am. med. Ass. 161, 855.Google Scholar
James, W.H. (1972) Secular changes in dizygotic twinning rates. J. biosoc. Sci. 4, 427.Google Scholar
Mckinlay, S., Jefferys, M. & Thompson, B. (1972) An investigation of the age at menopause. J. biosoc. Sci. 4, 16.Google Scholar
Mclaren, A. (1972) The future of the family. In: The Future of Man. Ed. Ebling, F.J. and Heath, G.W.Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Parkes, A.S. (1968) Seasonal variation in human sexual activity. In: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Behaviour. Ed. Thoday, J.M. and Parkes, A.S.Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Pearl, R. (1939) The Natural History of Population. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
Pearson, J.F. (1971) Pilot study of single women requesting a legal abortion. J. biosoc. Sci. 3, 417.Google Scholar
Population Reference Bureau (1961) One man's family. Popul. Bull., Wash. 17, 155.Google Scholar
Population Reference Bureau (1968) Pockets of high fertility in the United States. Popul. Bull. Wash. 24, 25.Google Scholar
Solano, F. (1967) A journel of a thousand miles. Family Planning 16, 48.Google Scholar
Whitten, W.K. (1957) Modification of the oestrous cycle of the mouse by external stimuliassociated with the male. J. Endocr. 17, 307.Google Scholar