4 ms·
Or maybe atheists want to concentrate more resources on the upbringing of the child so that they have a competitive advantage. Then also consider that in 3,000
by zbyte64 7y ago
Or maybe atheists want to concentrate more resources on the upbringing of the child so that they have a competitive advantage.
Then also consider that in 3,000 years I'll probably be ancestor to all (this holds true for others, I am by no means special). Don't really need to go through the hassle of rearing 6 more kids to secure my genetic future.
- toasterlovin 7y ago> Or maybe atheists want to concentrate more resources on the upbringing of the child so that they have a competitive advantage. If you have less than 3 children, investing more resources in each child doesn't matter. 2 children is break even from the standpoint of procreation. So purposefully limiting yourself to that many or fewer children is a losing procreation strategy.
- 0134340 7y agoTrue, quality over quantity, investing more in few is a valid evolutionary advantage, both short and long. OP should've used the term "evolutionarily advantageous on the short term in some conditions" instead of "massive evolutionary advantage" if correctness is valued.
- shadofx 7y agoHistorical observations of the logarithmic expansion of one's descendant-set are based off historical procreation rates. If your ideology is to have one child, and all your descendants adopt that ideology too, then you won't experience the same rate of proliferation.