Bernd
03/16/2018 (Fri) 21:11:47
No.14424
del
03/16/2018 (Fri) 21:11:47
No.14424
del
>>14415
>A women in our age don't need to give birth to 10 kids to make sure at least 4 stays alive.
Irrelevant, we're talking about fertility, not reproductive success based on the mechanisms of sexual selection.
>Let's say the ideal number of kids is 4 (3 is fine but the following example works better with 4). 4 pregnancy takes 3 years. Let this woman rest between pregnancies, let's say 2 years for each gap. That's 9 years in total for giving birth to 4 kids.
Well if we talk about replacement levels, the replacement levels economists like the most is 2.15 kids per household. However from a biological standpoint this is actually hard to determine since it varies on your population size and demographics. It also depends on what type of population distribution you want for specific alleles. If your sole purpose is to say replenish something like say, the US's white population then a model that promotes growth instead of normal replacement levels that maintain the current Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium is ideal.
You can't just BLINDLY say that 4 children is the ideal without stating why m8.
>25-35
That's where you're wrong, once you reach 30s as a female it's game over. There's a reason why whores suddenly want to marry a man once they reach their late 20s. The biological clock is real and without expensive medical treatments it's very dangerous to have kids in such a late stage of life. Again prime age is 18, you can start them younger but that doesn't change things at all.
My stance on the thread in concerns to finding a partner, at least in the US, is not that AoC should be abolished, but rather that younger is better for stability of the relationship. Reproductive success is something else entirely that while important, doesn't necessarily talk about a relationship's success, but rather the individual's evolutionary fitness for their environment.
>A women in our age don't need to give birth to 10 kids to make sure at least 4 stays alive.
Irrelevant, we're talking about fertility, not reproductive success based on the mechanisms of sexual selection.
>Let's say the ideal number of kids is 4 (3 is fine but the following example works better with 4). 4 pregnancy takes 3 years. Let this woman rest between pregnancies, let's say 2 years for each gap. That's 9 years in total for giving birth to 4 kids.
Well if we talk about replacement levels, the replacement levels economists like the most is 2.15 kids per household. However from a biological standpoint this is actually hard to determine since it varies on your population size and demographics. It also depends on what type of population distribution you want for specific alleles. If your sole purpose is to say replenish something like say, the US's white population then a model that promotes growth instead of normal replacement levels that maintain the current Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium is ideal.
You can't just BLINDLY say that 4 children is the ideal without stating why m8.
>25-35
That's where you're wrong, once you reach 30s as a female it's game over. There's a reason why whores suddenly want to marry a man once they reach their late 20s. The biological clock is real and without expensive medical treatments it's very dangerous to have kids in such a late stage of life. Again prime age is 18, you can start them younger but that doesn't change things at all.
My stance on the thread in concerns to finding a partner, at least in the US, is not that AoC should be abolished, but rather that younger is better for stability of the relationship. Reproductive success is something else entirely that while important, doesn't necessarily talk about a relationship's success, but rather the individual's evolutionary fitness for their environment.