--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2007, at 3:23 PM, mainstream20016 wrote: > > > It seems that the domesticity and procreative drives are intense, > > There is no inherant "procreative" or baby-drive, MS--that's just > misogynistic crap. If there were, there wouldn't be so much social > pressure to have kids. Whenever that relaxes, the amount of children > in each family goes down dramatically--nearly always--from the 10-12 > each woman could theoretically have, to 1, 2 or 0. > > Sal
You seem to be saying that 'so much social pressure to have kids' is an artificial construct - and when 'that' relaxes, family size would naturally decrease significantly. I contend that 'social pressure' reinforces the consensus collective experience over many millinia of how things work best and most effectively for the species. In other words, 'social pressure ' reflects biology. Which historical periods reinforce your statement that --'nearly always'-- the number of children in each family goes down dramatically when 'social pressure' for large families relaxes?
