Latest news with #RobinDunbar
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
Britain on the brink of a 'cousin crash': Smaller families on the rise as birthrate falls - with average number of cousins dropping significantly
Britain is on the brink of a cousin crash due to declining birthrate and smaller families, according to researchers. In the 1970s, the average British teenager had seven cousins, but today they only have five. It is projected to fall to four by the end of the century. Academics Diego Alburez-Gutierrez of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, alongside fellow academics Iván Williams and Hal Caswell, have published a study on the declining numbers of cousins. They argue there will be a shift away from children growing up with lots of relatives their own age — including both siblings and cousins — to instead spending more time with grandparents and even great-grandparents. As families become older and smaller, it means cousins, who often help each other with financial, practical or emotional support, will be called upon less. And although friends are increasingly being used to fill in the role of traditional cousins, they are seen as a lot less reliable on average. Cousins often help even after years of little contact, while this happens less often with long-lost friends. This is because 'family networks are like a spider's web', according to Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University. The anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist, who has studied the science behind our bonds with family and friends, told the Times: 'Your relationship with your cousin is kept in place not just by your interaction with your cousin. 'But also with your interaction with any number of intervening relatives. That isn't true of friendships, which tend to be more individual and personal.' The experts point out that this change makes a marked difference for the vast majority of human history, where the majority of close relationships would overwhelmingly be made up of extended family members. The changing nature of our families' lives have been driven by freefalling birth rates, which have triggered doomsday warnings about population collapse from some. Demographers warn the lack of babies will devastate Western economies as it may leave countries with too few younger people to work, pay tax and look after the elderly. It is believed to be caused by some women prioritising their education and careers, and couples waiting to have children until later in life.. Rising costs, especially the price of childcare and housing, is another factor thought to be putting people off starting families. There is no evidence that Covid vaccines are to blame, with scientists insisting there is no proof they harm fertility. Women in England and Wales, on average, now only have 1.44 children. This is the lowest since records began in the 30s and half of levels seen during the mid-60s baby boom. Britain's fertility rate as a whole is forecasted to fall to 1.3 by 2100. The fewer babies being born on average means the less likely the average Brit is to have a squad of cousins to call upon when they need them. For some families, the changing number of cousins in just a few generations has been drastic. For example, there are many instances in recent history of Catholic families, encouraged by their faith, having well over 100 cousins. As well as being more reliable than friends, cousins also have the advantage of being more diverse. Alburez-Gutierrez argues that while people do choose their friends, they often tend to come from the same narrow social demographic, whereas cousins can be far more varied. Distant family members can often be very different, he said, pointing out the example of the stereotypical cantankerous uncle who brings up controversial topics around the Christmas dinner table. The varied nature of groups of people bound by blood often means they are more likely to get exposed to ideas or points of view that are different. Cousins often occupy a varied place within families. Some see them as close as a sibling, while others see them as strangers. Some cousins live on the same street; some live on opposite side of the world. But all cousins know what it's like to be part of the same particular family. They also have the advantage of, unlike sibling relationships, of not being fraught by intense closeness such as arguing over childhood toys or a parents' eldercare. Instead they are usually uncomplicated, even if they are closer in age and are in the same generation. The experts believe the role of grandparents are important when it comes to cousins developing a bond as children. And although cousins tend to naturally drift apart a little when grandparents die, some sense of connection is likely to remain as family members are much more obligated to say yes. The UK is not alone in facing a cousin crashing fertility crisis, with the latest figures showing that the EU also experienced a plunge last year to an all-time low. Double-digit percentage falls were recorded in Romania (13.9 per cent), Poland (10.7 per cent) and Czechia (10 per cent). Wealthy EU nations, including France and Germany, also saw significant drops. So what is behind the West's baby bust? Women worldwide, on average, are having fewer children now than previous generations. The trend, down to increased access to education and contraception, more women taking up jobs and changing attitudes towards having children, is expected to see dozens of countries' population shrink by 2100. Dr Jennifer Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, told MailOnline that people are choosing to have smaller families and the change 'is permanent'. 'So it's wise to focus on working within this new reality rather than trying to change it,' she said. Sex education and contraception A rise in education and access to contraception is one reason behind the drop off in the global fertility rate. Education around pregnancy and contraception has increased, with sex education classes beginning in the US in the 1970s and becoming compulsory in the UK in the 1990s. 'There is an old adage that "education is the best contraception" and I think that is relevant' for explaining the decline in birth rates, said Professor Allan Pacey, an andrologist at the University of Sheffield and former chair of the British Fertility Society. Elina Pradhan, a senior health specialist at the World Bank, suggests that more educated women choose to have fewer children due to concerns about earning less when taking time off before and after giving birth. In the UK, three in 10 mothers and one in 20 fathers report having to cut back on their working hours due to childcare, according to ONS data. They may also have more exposure to different ideas on family sizes through school and connections they make during their education, encouraging them to think more critically about the number of children they want, she said. And more educated women may know more about prenatal care and child health and may have more access to healthcare, Ms Pradhan added. Professor Jonathan Portes, an economist at King's College London, said that women's greater control over their own fertility means 'households, and women in particular, both want fewer children and are able to do so'. More women entering the workplace More women are in the workplace now than they were 50 years ago — 72 vs 52 per cent — which has contributed to the global fertility rate halving over the same time period. Professor Portes also noted that the drop-off in the birth rate may also be down to the structure of labour and housing markets, expensive childcare and gender roles making it difficult for many women to combine career aspirations with having a family. The UK Government has 'implemented the most anti-family policies of any Government in living memory' by cutting services that support families, along with benefit cuts that 'deliberately punish low-income families with children', he added. As more women have entered the workplace, the age they are starting a family has been pushed back. Data from the ONS shows that the most common age for a women who were born in 1949 to give birth was 22. But women born in 1975, were most likely to have children when they were 31-years-old. In another sign that late motherhood is on the rise, half of women born in 1990, the most recent cohort to reach 30-years-old, remained childless at 30 — the highest rate recorded. Women repeatedly point to work-related reasons for putting off having children, with surveys finding that most women want to make their way further up the career ladder before conceiving. However, the move could be leading to women having fewer children than they planned. In the 1990s, just 6,700 cycles of IVF — a technique to help people with fertility problems to have a baby — took place in the UK annually. But this skyrocketed to more than 69,000 by 2019, suggesting more women are struggling to conceive naturally. Declining sperm counts Reproductive experts have also raised the alarm that biological factors, such as falling sperm counts and changes to sexual development, could 'threaten human survival'. Dr Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, authored a ground-breaking 2017 study that revealed that global sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades. She warned that 'everywhere chemicals', such as phthalates found in toiletries, food packaging and children's toys, are to blame. The chemicals cause hormonal imbalance which can trigger 'reproductive havoc', she said. Factors including smoking tobacco and marijuana and rising obesity rates may also play a role, Dr Swan said. Studies have also pointed to air pollution for dropping fertility rates, suggesting it triggers inflammation which can damage egg and sperm production. However, Professor Pacey, a sperm quality and fertility expert, said: 'I really don't think that any changes in sperm quality are responsible for the decline in birth rates. 'In fact, I do not believe the current evidence that sperm quality has declined.' He said: 'I think a much bigger issue for falling birth rates is the fact that: (a) people are choosing to have fewer children; and (b) they are waiting until they are older to have them.' Fears about bringing children into the world Choosing not to have children is cited by some scientists as the best thing a person can do for the planet, compared to cutting energy use, travel and making food choices based on their carbon footprint. Scientists at Oregon State University calculated that the each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the 'carbon legacy' of a woman. Each metric ton is equivalent to driving around the world's circumference. Experts say the data is discouraging the climate conscious from having babies, while others are opting-out of children due to fears around the world they will grow up in. Dr Britt Wray, a human and planetary health fellow at Stanford University, said the drop-off in fertility rates was due to a 'fear of a degraded future due to climate change'. She was one of the authors behind a Lancet study of 10,000 volunteers, which revealed four in ten young people fear bringing children into the world because of climate concerns. Professor David Coleman, emeritus professor of demography at Oxford University, told MailOnline that peoples' decision not to have children is 'understandable' due to poor conditions, such as climate change.
Economist
16-06-2025
- Business
- Economist
Meet the boss: Robin Dunbar, evolutionary psychologist
Robin Dunbar, the man behind Dunbar's number, says there's a limit to the number of meaningful connections a person can maintain. That has implications for how managers should organise teams, departments and whole companies. To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+. If you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.
Fast Company
11-06-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
Welcome to the clubhouse: How retail is becoming ritual
Walk through any trendy shopping area and you'll notice something. A familiar grouping of brands. Entryways into hospitable, curated spaces inviting you in for a hang. The music is right. The lighting is low. Brand-approved candles are lit. The mood is unmistakable. You're stepping into a worldview. There's a tempo to it. A shared language. A subtle but clear sense that you've crossed a threshold; one where you're more than a customer, you're a part of something. That feeling isn't accidental and it isn't just marketing. It's anthropology. The best retail experiences optimize beyond conversion. They're engineered for belonging. On pieces themselves, garment branding may be subtle or even invisible. It becomes an IYKYK (if you know, you know) situation, and that may be the most powerful (and most overlooked) advantage in modern commerce: Brands that create community intentionally, intelligently and culturally are building moats no discount can breach. Retail is becoming ritual Humans are wired for tribes. Evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar proposed that we maintain meaningful relationships in nested social groups, with the most stable number being around 150. It's now known as Dunbar's Number. When a brand creates the conditions for that kind of familiarity through design, cadence, tone, and storytelling, awareness starts to feel an awful lot like identity. This isn't just theory: Kantar research notes that millennials, in particular, value brands that foster community and shared identity, suggesting that belonging is a purchase driver. GWI's trend data shows that even Gen Z (the most digitally native generation) prefers in-store shopping for apparel as long as it delivers something meaningful. Social Identity Theory shows we become like the groups we join. The more a brand helps someone say, 'This is who I am,' the more likely they are to return, advocate, and embed themselves in the ecosystem. We're clearly seeing this shift play out across retail. Café Leon Dore offers coffee and sets a scene. The space blends Aimé Leon Dore's boutique retail with the mood of an old-world social club: polished wood, curated reading material, and an unspoken dress code you can feel. Lacoste's country club–themed concept stores evoke the quiet prestige and ritual of tennis clubs and exclusive enclaves. Think crests, clay courts, locker rooms. Genesis House in New York's Meatpacking District, Hyundai's luxury showroom, is a restaurant, library, and event space. You literally can't even buy a car there. These aren't nostalgic flourishes. They are signals built using visual language that says: This space is for you. Settle in and stay a while. Modern retailers have embraced the third place, the essential social space outside home and work where people gather, connect, and express identity. It's the role barbershops and jazz clubs once played. Now we're seeing it in stores by Kith, Tecovas, Alo, Vuori, Todd Snyder, Lululemon, Buck Mason, and others. From transaction to tribe Contrary to how it seems on the surface, this shift is all about structure. It's a move from customer relationship management (CRM) to community, from footfall to familiarity, from stores as destinations to stores as social signals. Brand strategists call this concept brand citizenship: a framework where people effectively 'join' the brands they shop. That shift changes everything about how you design space, train staff, listen, and measure. Here's the tension: You can't spreadsheet your way into a community. You have to observe, and design for soft signals. Data plays a critical role, but the output is mood, energy, attention, flow. It's about sense-making. Belonging is the differentiator In a world of endless options, the scarcest resource is meaning. That's what the best retail brands are offering. Beyond products, they offer places to align, express, and belong. So no, the store isn't dying and we never stopped going to the mall. The mall just splintered, reborn as a network of third-place brands with better lighting and better coffee. The next wave of retail isn't about traffic. It's about tribes. The brands that understand this will win.
Kiwiblog
08-06-2025
- General
- Kiwiblog
Why economists should like booze
The Economist writes: Consider the economics of the restaurant industry. Alcohol offers higher profit margins than food as it requires less labour to prepare. Indeed, using official American data, your columnist estimates that booze accounts for all the profits of the restaurant industry. Drinkers subsidise non-drinkers. Those who order sparkling water can feel sanctimonious in the short run. But if no one orders a bottle of Bordeaux, many restaurants will go under. Be interesting if this data is the same for New Zealand. Second, abstinence makes people lonelier. For centuries alcohol has served a social function. It helps people relax. Taking a drink also signals to others that you are happy to be slower and more vulnerable—that you have left your weapon at the door—which puts them at ease. A study from 2012 in Psychological Science found that alcohol increases social bonding. Robin Dunbar of Oxford University and colleagues find that frequenting a pub improves how engaged people feel with their community, in turn raising life satisfaction. It is not a stretch to say that alcohol has played a big evolutionary role in fostering human connection. Many couples credit alcohol, at least in part, for bringing them together. So it may not be a coincidence that the alcohol-shunning young are lonely. People do drink to relax and socialise. For centuries creative folk, from Aeschylus to Coleridge to Dickens, have relied on alcohol for inspiration. In the 1960s, when productivity was soaring, everyone was drunk all the time. No other drug has played such a consistent role in human innovation. Being intoxicated opens up the possibility of accidents of insight. Purely rational, linear minds have fewer of the flashes of brilliance that can turn an art form or an industry upside-down. It allows brains to disconnect. A study of American painters in 1946 by Ann Roe of Yale University noted that 'a nightly cocktail before dinner may contribute to the avoidance of a state of chronic tension, especially…when creative activity is at its height.' Studies suggest that alcohol, deployed judiciously, can aid the creative process. Andrew Jarosz of Mississippi State University and colleagues have found that intoxicated people solved problems faster and 'were more likely to perceive their solutions as the result of a sudden insight'. Fascinating.
Yahoo
23-03-2025
- General
- Yahoo
The lost art of cleaning out your feed
Have you noticed that the internet is less fun lately? You're not alone. There are all kinds of reasons for this, many of which I can't begin to unpack here. At least part of the problem, though, is that we all stopped tidying up our feeds. Social media is only fun if you like the posts you're seeing. What kind of posts you see depends on which social media site you're using, but generally there are two categories of timelines: the reverse chronological, which you can directly control, and the algorithmic, which you can only sort of steer. In both cases, though, there are things you can do to see more of the things you like and less of the things you don't like. With that in mind let's rediscover the lost art of tidying out your feeds. Here's a few routines I try to stick to when I notice a lot of gunk—hopefully they're helpful for you. The British anthropologist Robin Dunbar suggested in a widely cited paper that there's a cognitive limit to the number of people with whom a person can maintain a relationship, proposing that the number is around 150. The theory, which he arrived at by observing primates and scaled based on the relative size of human brains, is that we can't really handle more relationships than that. While the exact number is debated the general concept that there is a limit is referred to as Dunbar's Number. You might remember failed social network Path was based on this concept. Basically you, as a single person, can't keep up with everyone. Your brain literally can't handle it. Following hundreds of people on social media means setting yourself up for feeling behind—you can't possibly keep up with all of those people. This is why I try to routinely do what I call The Great Unfollowing. I'm a fairly generous follower. If I read an article I like I'll try to find a newsletter link or RSS feed so I can keep up with the author. The same goes on social media: I try to follow people whose work I want to see more of. Over time, though, I become overwhelmed with the sheer volume. This can be a particular problem on social networks like Mastodon or Bluesky's 'following' tab, which have a reverse chronological timeline. It's also true of my RSS reader. That's because these services use a reverse chronological timeline. Put simply: These show you every post by the people or publications you're following ordered from most recent and scrolling down from there. The idea is that you can keep up with every post stop when you get to something that you've noticed before. The simplicity is the appeal here but it has some downsides. For example: If someone you follow posts a lot they are going to be overrepresented in your timeline. This is where The Great Unfollowing comes in. Basically I, on a routine basis, will open the following list, look at each one, and decide whether I want to keep following them. Back when Twitter was a thing I did this every time I noticed I was following more than 150 people—more than that, I'd noticed, and keeping up shifted from fun into an overwhelming firehouse. In order to keep up with the accounts I value most I need to occasionally unfollow the accounts that, to paraphrase a book you've heard of, aren't sparking joy. Another option is organizing your followers into groups or creating different accounts for different interests (for example: an Instagram account for following people you know in real life and one for sports or celebrities or food, whatever your interests). Now, I only heard about Dunbar's number after I started doing this. And I don't mean to suggest that there is scientific evidence that you should only ever follow 150 people, or any precise number. For one thing, following someone on social media isn't the same as having a relationship with them, a point that needs to be stated clearly. Most of my close relationships happen entirely outside of social media and I hope the same is true for you. All I mean to suggest is that there's probably a limit to the number of people, publications, and meme accounts that you can keep up with. Rather than feeling overwhelmed you should take the time to cut things back from time to time. The alternative is getting burnt out on your feeds and not following anyone anymore. The above section was all about pruning back reverse chronological feeds, where you see all of the posts from all of the people you follow. Many modern social media services, however, barely take which accounts you follow into account. TikTok, famously, uses an algorithm to feed you videos you might be interested in based on your past behavior. The YouTube homepage works the same way: it's based more on which videos you spend time watching than on which channels you've subscribed to. In both cases hitting the subscribe button may increase the odds of seeing videos from someone but it's not a sure thing. Threads works the same way. Instagram and Facebook, meanwhile, show you a few recent posts from your friends before turning into an algorithmic feed. In all of these cases you can't quite take the same approach as you can with reverse chronological feeds—unfollowing someone may not have any impact on whether or not you see those posts in your feed. But there are things you can do to help direct the kinds of content that shows up. The first: don't click videos you don't want to see, or if you do leave as quickly as possible. If you want to take more direct action most apps provide tools for that. On YouTube, for example, you can click the three dots next to a video titled and click the 'Not interested' button. There are similar buttons on Instagram, Facebook, and Threads. Now, how effective these buttons are are the subject of some debate—sometimes it doesn't seem to make any difference. If you truly despise a particular creator and don't want to see their stuff at all, well, there's always the mute or block button. The point is to think actively about what you're seeing in your timeline and attempt to take active steps to align it with what you want to see. Sometimes nothing seems to work, though, which is when it might be best to start over entirely. The simplest way to do this is to make a new account but you don't necessarily have to. We've written about how to reset the YouTube algorithm and reset the Instagram algorithm, so you can try those guides first. There's also a handy Mozilla guide if you want to reset the TikTok algorithm. Just keep in mind that, after you reset, your choices will shape the algorithm you get next. Some reading this might think this is all a bit extreme, and I will grant you that it doesn't exactly sound relaxing. But there is arguably nothing more important than what you pay attention to. The things you read and watch will shape the person you become in a very real way. It is worth thinking critically about that and, if possible, trying to direct it. I hope the above tips help you, in some small way, to do that.
