Didn't really do much good did it? Thanks for the input, 1914wizard OUT

@1914wizard

Think of the term honeymoon. It's origins is self evident, one menstrual cycle. The hope was that the first born would be conceived during that period and be male due to inheritance practices.

The lack of interest in procreation today is what is interesting. Is it possible that it is tied to the increase in promiscuity? What other environmental factors play a role?

@wolfhnd Could be tied -- hadn't thought of procreation as the important factor that it really is -- or rather is supposed to be. Values have obviously changed a great deal over time. The preference for male children has always had to do with late life security rather than any kind of misogyny as feminists, along with all whining females would have us believe. And of course it follows that sons would inherit properties with which to support in old age. We forget so quickly that social security measure administered by government(s) is a very new thing -- which feminists also would like forgotten. But thanks for the input, 1914wizard OUT

@1914wizard

Yes the problem of subdivision of inheritance has never been solved.

When we think of inflation we general think it is very abstract and has only to do with things that are not "real" such as money. Population growth however is a kind of inflation that is built into life. If you have two kids they can only inherit half of what you have. That is a form of devaluation of assets. The only thing worse than inflation is deflation. If you only have one kid there is only one person to take care of two people. In theory they will have to work twice as hard to be as productive as two children. The only way to compensate is ever expanding productivity.

Prior to the industrial revolution the solution was periodic die offs of large segments of the population combined with migration. Wars and plagues provided the die offs and low population densities in some geographical locations provided the opportunity for migration. Since the industrial revolution wars have not been as constant and improvements in living conditions have reduced the impact of plagues. The industrial revolution provided every increasing productivity to compensate for population growth. It also meant that marginal areas would become occupied and now every corner of the earth is now occupied or settled ending migration as an alternative.

The point is that just as with monetary inflation population inflation requires compensation with increased productivity.

Little wonder there are people out there who would welcome a new plague. A die off that would make the resources available per individual greater. If they keep toying around with genetic engineering they may get their wish.

The interesting side note is that after the great plagues in Europe what you saw was downward mobility because the lower classes were worse effected. A kind of "natural" selection that increased efficiency as the general intelligence level of the population increased. The problem with that was that it is in the lower classes that traditional values reside. The glue that holds civilization together if you like. What you end up with is a lot of "dumb" smart people.

A lot of the problem is that intelligence is a necessary but insufficient condition for genius. The missing ingredient being imagination. I wouldn't say that John Lennon's song "Imagine" was very imaginative. It simply point out the obvious that if people had nothing to live or die for they wouldn't being fighting. The problem of course is they wouldn't be doing much of anything else either and in a way that is where we are at today. A lot of elites with nothing to live or die for and not much imagination either. The general population is searching for a "religion" to live and die for and they have found it in diversity, inclusion and equality. It excuses them from the hard work of maintaining their civilization, of expanding productivity.