No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Life History Theory and the Industrial Revolution
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2019
Abstract
The most general theory of life history evolution, that of r versus K selection, implies that innovation in the form of plasticity is more likely to be adaptive under poor rather than good resource conditions, the opposite of how Baumard has it. However, this does focus on benefits rather than costs, and including both allows for greater diversity of outcomes.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
Blute, M. (2010) Darwinian sociocultural evolution: Solutions to dilemmas in cultural and social theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blute, M. (2016) Density-dependent selection revisited: Mechanisms linking explanantia and explananda. Biological Theory 11(2):113–21.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. & Feldman, M. W. (1981) Cultural transmission and evolution: A quantitative approach. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, O. R., Scheuerlein, A. & Salguero-Gómez, R. (2014) Diversity of ageing across the tree of life. Nature 504:169–73.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. (1962) Some generalized theorems of natural selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 48:1893–97.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. (1967) The theory of island biogeography. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reznick, D., Bryant, M. J. & Bashey, F. (2002) r- and K- Selection revisited: The role of population regulation in life-history evolution. Ecology 83:1509–520.Google Scholar
Target article
Psychological origins of the Industrial Revolution
Related commentaries (24)
A claim for cognitive history
A needed amendment that explains too much and resolves little
Affluence boosted intelligence? How the interaction between cognition and environment may have produced an eighteenth-century Flynn effect during the Industrial Revolution
Are both necessity and opportunity the mothers of innovations?
Cultural interconnectedness and in-group cooperation as sources of innovation
Energy, transport, and consumption in the Industrial Revolution
England first, America second: The ecological predictors of life history and innovation
Environmental unpredictability, economic inequality, and dynamic nature of life history before, during, and after the Industrial Revolution
Explaining historical change in terms of LHT: A pluralistic causal framework is needed
Interrelationships of factors of social development are more complex than Life History Theory predicts
Life History Theory and economic modernity
Life History Theory and the Industrial Revolution
Many causes, not one
Psychological origins of the Industrial Revolution: Why we need causal methods and historians
Psychology and the economics of invention
Slowing life history (K) can account for increasing micro-innovation rates and GDP growth, but not macro-innovation rates, which declined following the end of the Industrial Revolution
The affective origins of the Industrial Revolution
The other angle of Maslow's pyramid: How scarce environments trigger low-opportunity-cost innovations
The wealth→life history→innovation account of the Industrial Revolution is largely inconsistent with empirical time series data
There is little evidence that the Industrial Revolution was caused by a preference shift
Timing is everything: Evaluating behavioural causal theories of Britain's industrialisation
Using big data to map the relationship between time perspectives and economic outputs
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
What motivated the Industrial Revolution: England's libertarian culture or affluence per se?
Author response
Psychological origins of the Industrial Revolution: More work is needed!