What is the actual cause for population growth?

[Ben Kenobi]

Lets say you begin at 18 to impregnate the wife. It takes 9 months for the first kid to come, and if she breastfeeds, her own body makes it much more difficult to get pregnant again because it would make little biological sense for a being that spends 9 months pregnant and must devote years to its offspring to keep having them

If you start at 18, and have 1 every two years, for 20 years, than it works. They don't need to come every year.

Secondly, the assumption is made that the wife wants to stay home and take care of all those kids. Third, 'for a being?' That's rather odd terminology. Are you suggesting that these wife and mothers are not persons but 'beings'?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Where did I say that the woman had no say? If the wife is willing to have that many kids, then it may work. It sure isn't going to work without a willing wife.

I don't think ANY woman ever aims to have 10 kids. That's 90 months in pregnancy if everything goes right.

Secondly, trying for 7 kids and having 5 sure beats the heck out of trying for two and getting two.

How, exactly?

Why would you want 5 kids anyways?

My uncle wanted to have as many children as his mother did. She had 7 kids with 3 men. HIs father had at least 10 children, but with about 3-4 women. Heck, his father was having kids when the guy was 70.

BUt there is a reason Ben that when given a choice, most women are more than happy with 1-3 kids.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


If you start at 18, and have 1 every two years, for 20 years, than it works. They don't need to come every year.

Secondly, the assumption is made that the wife wants to stay home and take care of all those kids. Third, 'for a being?' That's rather odd terminology. Are you suggesting that these wife and mothers are not persons but 'beings'?

I am sugesting that human beings are animals, and hence how ourt biology works is thanks to evolution. It makes little sense for a woman in the "state of nature", say living in a small semi-nomadic band, to have more than 1 child yet unable to walk. Anymore is a burden at that time. There is a reason why human beings ususally give birth to only one child at a time as opposed to trying for multiple births all the time.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think ANY woman ever aims to have 10 kids. That's 90 months in pregnancy if everything goes right.

They might not plan on having 10 kids, but generally leaving things to happen as they will happen, isn't really planning either.

How, exactly?

Why would you want 5 kids anyways?

Some folks like having big families. 5 isn't that many, I have a good family friend that has 5.

BUt there is a reason Ben that when given a choice, most women are more than happy with 1-3 kids.

Granted, but there will be some women who will not want to go the route to limit their pregnancies. It's all fine and well to say that you want 1 to 3 kids, but when you realise the other consequences of such a decision like that, some women aren't willing to go down this route.

[Ben Kenobi]

It makes little sense for a woman in the "state of nature", say living in a small semi-nomadic band, to have more than 1 child yet unable to walk. Anymore is a burden at that time. There is a reason why human beings ususally give birth to only one child at a time as opposed to trying for multiple births all the time.

Larger families were seen as a blessing, and not a burden. Remember that most of the kids would die before their first birthday.

[Kidlicious]

There's an economic theory that claims that children are consumer goods and you get diminishing utility from them. I think that women have some idea of the perfect family in thier heads though and it really doesn't have anything to do with money.

[Dis]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
people ****ing, duh

more and more, I find myself agreeing with Che.