News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:What to do with a screaming baby: the history of handbook... by darkerside on Sunday May 13, 2018 @08:25AM (#17058570)
I'm not talking about physical adaptations. It's the numbers game. Fathers can spread their genes with little effort, so biologically and reproductively they are "incentivized" to generate multiple offspring and devote less time raising them. Mothers (at least for mammals) have a lot of skin in the game for each offspring (9 months worth for humans). Have you ever been pregnant? You don't want to go through that any more times than you have to.

In summary, men are more likely than women to be reproductively successful with a low effort child rearing strategy. Is it the best strategy overall in modern society? I don't think so, but you can see how we'd evolve that way.

Re:What to do with a screaming baby: the history of handbook... by KirinDave on Monday May 14, 2018 @02:04AM (#17063076)
This is such reddit-jargon laden prose I feel like my browser must lying to me. Am I on Reddit?

1. Neither the premise of spreading genes with "little effort" nor the bit about incentivization is actually true unless you have a very odd definition "less time". While lifelong monogamy may not be an obvious strategy, communal child rearing that involves fathers has been the norm for most of recorded history in all civilizations, with poor and absent fathering nearly always being villified unless needs of the community outweighed it.

2. Lots of women have multiple children, no problem. Many elect to go back through it again. This idea that pregnancy wracks every woman is just ridiculous.

It's not even clear we evolved that way. Looking at our near genetic relatives, they don't actually do things the way you're describing and communal living isn't "a group of females desperately trying to avoid pregnancy as males raid and ravage them."

Re:What to do with a screaming baby: the history of handbook... by darkerside on Monday May 14, 2018 @10:16AM (#17065708)
Ugh, I feel like my nuanced point just got crushed by a steamroller piloted by a straw man. I'm not arguing a political agenda, if that's what your first line was getting at. Go back and read it again. Or don't. I guess I don't care anymore.