John D. Giorgis wrote: > > Well, the problem is that the more successful human beings > tend to be lately, the fewer children they tend to have. > So yes, delaying reproduction seems to produce a few high > quality children. > ??? I can't follow this. > Starting early, however, seems to produce an awful lot > of children. Unfortunately, > it is the latter case that is selected for. > The more children you have - supposing that there is competition among everybody's children - there will higher selective pressure among them, so that only the "fittest" will survive. OTOH, too many children will let them undercared, so that their chances of survival will diminish. I don't know at which number did Humanity converge during the time Humanity was subdueing the Earth [10,000 BC - 1900 AD] but I would guess at something from 2 + epsilon to 4 children per women. > Another thought to consider, however, is that delayed > reproduction might be evolutionary resistant for > certain societies where premarital sex is > strongly frowned upon. > There should be a strong feedback mechanism to enforce this, otherwise those fraction of the female population that had children as soon as puberty arrives would outnumber the rest of the population. Alberto Monteiro
