From: Van oost Kenneth (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 01 Jun 2003 - 10:11:17 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reed Konsler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Things like survival and longevity aren't significant after childbearing
> years are over. That lifespan have increased from 45-50 to 75-80 is a net
> Malthusian drain on communal resources. Particularly since women tend to
> outlive men and, after menopause, there isn't a lot of use for them...from
> genetic perspective. There is some research forwarding a hypothesized
> "grandmother effect", in which post-menopausal women care for the
> of their own daughters (which they can be assured carry their genes).
> I'm not convinced this care outweighs the cost of feeding grandma.
> Quality of mate is subjective. Is a more intelligent mate better, or a
> fecund fool?
> As for quantity, that isn't relevant unless live children are produced.
> can screw around all you want, but it's the number of kids that survive to
> procreate that counts. You can't survive that don't exist, and educated
> people have fewer children. These individual children may have a better
> quality of life; that is the booby prize.
Hm, within this context, how do you account for the number of divorces,
and the augmentation of ' reconstructed ' families as a consequences of
those divorces !?
(reconstucted families are those that hold within a mother and her children
and a father with his)
If they are young enough, a kid will be born within the new family.
Do you see this as element for getting a better life for all the children !?
What is the cultural/ social/ genetic and maybe memetic mechanism
behind this !?
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 01 Jun 2003 - 10:22:42 GMT