Re: Perpetual change

From: Kenneth Van Oost (
Date: Sun Apr 29 2001 - 11:18:43 BST

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Irreducibility of subjectivity (was Re: Levels of explanation (was Re: Determinism))"

    Received: by id KAA11048 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Sun, 29 Apr 2001 10:43:58 +0100
    Message-ID: <000701c0d095$da96e300$a503bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <>
    To: <>
    References: <[]>
    Subject: Re: Perpetual change
    Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:18:43 +0200
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Precedence: bulk

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Wade T.Smith <>
    To: Memetics Discussion List <>
    Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 11:09 PM
    Subject: Re: Perpetual change
    Hi Wade, you wrote,

    > I'm not at all sure _that_ agenda was behind any of this.

    << Neither I am, though, but from my perspective of understanding this
    seems to be the case. Like I said, I could be wrong.

    > The main conclusion here, I think, is that of determining how long a
    > woman remains of child-bearing and societal/cultural fitness, and, it
    > seems to show that early child-bearing has an impact on extended and
    > active child-bearing. The woman who puts off bearing a child until later
    > in life dies earlier, or is more incapacitated by disease and infirmity-
    > among the sampled set of twins in Australia....

    << I am not gonna create doubts about the survey itself, like I said, but
    about the conclusions. The comments mentioned above are not new, we
    all know that if a woman has her kids early that she has more time to
    spend with them; more to time to stand by them. So, what is new !?
    I understand that it is important to determine how long a woman remains
    of child- bearing and social/ cultural fitness, but again, there is nothing
    new said here.

    > There was another study I remember reading somewhere that claimed that
    > modern women menstruate far more than nature designed for them to do by
    > not having children. But, yeah, who knows? We are not in the veldt
    > anymore, or the caves, and we really don't _need_ to make the amount of
    > babies we once did, but, who's telling nature that?

    << Well, I am not gonna argue that specific study also, but again from my
    perspective this seems a trick of nature too. Have a kid and the social,
    and why not cultural inconveniences and discomforts of menstruation will
    diseappear. I have problems with such ,in my opinion, partial conclusions.
    Like the man has no urges, like the man has nothing to say, when and how
    many children a couple will have. An old argument comes to mind, to have
    no children at all and still enjoy sex, both part of the couple has to show
    responsibility. As a woman you can take the pill, but it would be better
    that the man uses condoms too...

    > Putting off child-bearing until late in life is a cultural decision,
    > quite at odds with the biological body (especially since there are many
    and good statistics that show girls are reaching puberty earlier than

    << Quit, but the survey shows that the biological body is fighting back,
    and IMO there is no conclusive evidence that shows that reaching puberty
    earlier means that those girls also have more kids.
    I know, in England, pregnacies under youngsters are a wide spread social
    problem, but I can 't think of any reason why having those kids early would
    end up in an extented and active child- bearing !
    The social and cultural background for doing so is missing...

    If, like the survey suggets that fitness is 40 to 50% genetical determined,
    what than to say about those woman by whom their fitness is not
    genetical determined !?
    And what about the by the environment caused descreased chances to
    get pregnant in the first place_ stresses, populution, alimentation,
    Studies show that the quality of sperm is diminishing, and what about the
    possibilites to have children without that urge !?
    Vitro- fertalization, sperm- donation, adoption in a sense... when a spon-
    taneous pregnacy is not possible and there is a " childwish " ( the urge)
    how would the biological body cope with this and how would nature
    solve this !? Does this means that those woman are increasing their chances
    to get a career !?

    Questions I know, but I stay hungry...
    Wade, thanks for reading,



    ( I am, because we are)

    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 2b29 : Sun Apr 29 2001 - 10:47:21 BST