The Selfish Gene, 2nd Edition, p 109

Jan 5, 2016

It is easy to see why some people have wanted to separate parental care from the other kinds of kin-selected altruism. Parental care looks like an integral part of reproduction whereas, for example, altruism toward a nephew is not. I think there really is an important distinction hidden here, but that people have mistaken what the distinction is. They have put reproduction and parental care on one side, and other sorts of altruism on the other. But I wish to make a distinction between bringing new individuals into the world, on the one hand, and caring for existing individuals on the other. I shall call these two activities respectively child-bearing and child-caring. An individual survival machine has to make two quite different sorts of decisions, caring decisions and bearing decisions. I use the word decision to mean unconscious strategic move. The caring decisions are of this form: ‘There is a child; its degree of relatedness to me is so and so; its chances of dying if I do not feed it are such and such; shall I feed it?’ Bearing decisions, on the other hand, are like this: ‘Shall I take whatever steps are necessary in order to bring a new individual into the world; shall I reproduce?’ To some extent, caring and bearing are bound to compete with each other for an individual’s time and other resources: the individual may have to make a choice: ‘Shall I care for this child or shall I bear a new one?’

-Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2nd Edition, p 109


38 comments on “The Selfish Gene, 2nd Edition, p 109

  • Put as starkly as that, it reminds me of a video by Richard: Richard Dawkins: Insurance Policy: Two Eggs, One Survivor. Pretty raw, but logical for the birds.
    I don’t think this applies to higher order social species as elephants, whales, great apes and humans. Certainly in people, there is no question about caring after bearing; women only choose to bear if there is a reasonable future for the child. Enslavement, poverty and forced prositution by warlords and religious leaders are a whole different story that does not apply here.

    Report abuse

  • shall I reproduce?
    shall I feed it?’

    In all of the evolutionary sciences, is there any topic more difficult to discuss? It’s amazing how in denial we can be about the unattractive calculations that women make as part of their reproductive strategy. I guess there’s nothing new about this. Even Europeans at the height of their child abandonment via foundling homes and wet nursing were oddly in denial about what was happening with the babies and children that they dropped off and shipped out. It’s not a pretty picture that’s for sure but it’s so prevalent in human history that I must conclude that infanticide is a common tactic in the overall reproductive strategy of human females.

    Ok. I’m ready to take my lumps now. 🙂

    The first question above is difficult enough, with its very serious consideration of the great expense of a pregnancy and twenty years of investment in the offspring to come. The expense is both biological and economic. Questions come to mind such as, are there other offspring already alive that could be adversely affected by a needy newborn? Are there close kin who will help provision and provide other types of care? Is the timing good and hopeful for the babies survival? Does the mother have enough body fat to make it through the biologically expensive pregnancy herself without starving? Is the mother at her full adult size so that she could hope to survive labor and delivery? Can she count on the baby’s father to provision? If not, will her own family help out? This is a complicated equation and it has many variables to plug in before a decision can be made.

    Some of these questions seem odd in this modern time and some of us have difficulty imagining how any woman wouldn’t have enough body fat to make it through a pregnancy, but this very phenomenon wasn’t so rare in times past and can still be seen in famine situations in other parts of the world. For women in our ancestral past, it would have been realistic to wonder if they would be able to take in enough calories to make it through the pregnancy and if they would produce an infant that was big enough to survive but not so big that it would jam in their pelvis and end up killing them both.

    If all of that went well, then we have: shall I feed it?

    What if a new mom decides for whatever reason, that she doesn’t want to raise this newborn that she has just delivered? Maybe she has five kids already that she can’t feed and maybe she knows that there’s a famine on the horizon. Maybe she has no help provisioning herself and her kids and no hope to work when there’s no one to watch over her kids. Maybe she lives in the Amazon where the tribal leader has just declared that her newborn has been overtaken by evil spirits and is now rejected by the tribe. Maybe she’s 16 years old and lives in an industrialized country in a middle class family that is puritanical, evangelical Christians who have made their views on “illegitimate” babies and their whoring mothers very clear to her from a young age and now she is in the bathroom of the school gymnasium with a newborn that has left her terrified and alone and she sees only one choice in front of her; dispose of the evidence.

    Sadly, there is no shortage of the situations described above. It may take much less that that to come to the decision of no on the question of whether or not to feed it. Here is a section from the book Mother Nature, Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy that discusses how prevalent child abandonment was in Italy not so long ago at all.

    Chapter 12, Unnatural Mothers. page 304.
    Start Quote:
    Italy provides some of the most complete records on infant abandonment, and these data have been analyzed by a roster of distinguished historians and demographers, among them the anthropological demographer David Kertzer. By 1640, 22 percent of all children baptized in Florence were babies that had been abandoned. Between 1500 and 1700, this proportion never fell below 12 percent. In the worst years on record, during he 1840’s, 43 percent of all infants baptized in Florence were abandoned. In the Grand Duchy of Tuscany around the same time, 5000 were abandoned – practically 10 percent of all born.

    As in much of Catholic Europe, a ruota, or rotating barrel, was installed in 1660 to replace the old marble basin at Florence’s main foundling home, the Innocenti. By 1699 however,it was necessary to place a grill across the opening to prevent parents from shoving in older children as well.

    To the north, at the foundling hone in Milan, 343,406 children were left between 1659 and 1900. For Milan in the year 1875, 91 percent of illegitimate children whose births managed to get recorded were abandoned. But the Italian cities were not isolated cases. Comparative data compiled by Kertzer for the period 1880-89 reveal an annual average of 15,475 infants abandoned in Moscow; 9,458 in St. Petersburg, which is comparable to figures showing 9,101 abandoned in Vienna during the 1860’s and 2,200 in Madrid between 1800 and 1809. The majority would not survive. In one of the worst sets of statistics, of 72,000 infants abandoned in Sicily between 1783 and 1809, about 20 percent survived. The scale of mortality was so appalling, and so openly acknowledged, that residents of Brescia proposed that a motto be carved over the gate of the foundling home: “Here children are killed at public expense.”

    Even as cultural amnesia and other sleighs of mind wipe clear the Western slate concerning acts and omissions responsible for more infant deaths than from several plagues combined, tangible reminders of the West’s legacy of “unnatural mothers” persist in marble statues, stately Renaissance buildings where unwanted infants were warehoused, in police reports, and in crumbling ledgers from the foundling homes. Even phone books in most large metropolitan cities still bear witness. …names like Esposito (Italian for “exposed”) or Trouve’ (French for “found”). In Milan, many were given the last name Colombo, for the pigeons that alighted on the roof of the foundling home there and adorned its emblem.
    End Quote

    Tough reading, that’s for sure, and a far cry from the sappy facade promoted by our current day pious, judgmental hypocrites, but truth is more important here. When one lonely panicked teen in a school bathroom disposes of her newborn in a trash can, is she an aberrant psychopath or based on our ancestral past, is she doing exactly what is predictable based on factors such as her age and situation? It matters greatly what we think about her decision about her question at that time –shall I feed it? Is she a victim or a criminal or something else entirely?

    For those who have said to themselves, “Why didn’t she just have an abortion if she didn’t want a child?” Safe abortion is a modern invention. In the past, an attempt at abortion was highly likely to kill a woman. Less risky was to proceed straight through to delivery and then dispatch the newborn even though childbirth carried a high risk of death in the past too. Now a clinical abortion is much safer than a labor and delivery. Abortion is the new child abandonment.

    Let the lumps begin…

    Report abuse

  • 3
    maria melo says:

    You seem to blame ” female reproductive strategy”, you never seem to think of parenthood as social institution (not exclusively feminine). For what I remember about the kind of discussion you have participaed at least twice that I am aware, you seem to have particular prejudice against women.
    But I will not invest any more time discussing it.

    Report abuse

  • Hi maria

    Can you explain more about “parenthood as social institution”? I’m not sure how this goes against anything I’ve written above. I don’t want to answer to this point if I’m not sure what it means.

    Do you think that men and women have the same strategy in reproduction? I wonder if you would agree that we women have different goals and different ideas about how to get to those goals as far as how many children are optimum and how to get those children to grow up healthy and in good standing to produce their own children.

    As I said above, this is very difficult subject matter. But how is it “prejudice” if I present certain truths about us? It feels odd to be accused of prejudice against women because the usual insult that I have thrown at me is that I defend women strongly. I won’t tell you the words that have been used.

    If you don’t want to discuss this subject then that’s your decision and I certainly accept it. But I hope we can make peace with our reproductive strategy even if it’s painful to look at the truth of the situation. Trust me that it’s very painful for me to report this information as I know it is for you to read it. If you think I’m hard on us women, just wait until Richard puts up a paragraph on rape. Then you’ll see the other side of this story all right! And rest assured, I’ll take plenty of lumps on that thread as well.

    Maria, we are not perfect angels in this game. There are terrible hard choices in this life and infanticide and child abandonment are the tragic actions that happen in this imperfect world. One thing I know we can start off saying is – less infanticide, abortion and abandonment would be a very good thing. I always want to start off with an agreement like this. Then we can acknowledge the truth of the situation and talk about the steps we can take to reach that goal.

    Are you with me on this?

    Report abuse

  • 5
    maria melo says:

    Historians, for professional ethics of the discipline don´t mixup ontogenic processes of human history with philogeny of the species (evolutionary history), they don´t mess up history with dubious moral points of view, in theis case, women in your text are escape goats for infanticide due to their “reproductive strategies”.
    Even from a scientific point of view, primates have complex careful parenting, ecological reasons can affect mothering and parenting I suppose, in natural world scientists can try to understand it, not taking cheap moral conclusions too, which I say, yours are pretty dubious.
    Notice that I don´t know to whom I am talking to, what your profession is etc. and I will not, as I said befor, invest in the discussion.

    I can leave some link, sense internet is not a private club of knowledge, just to suggest that the matter of infanticide is not simply resolved by creating escape goats.

    Report abuse

  • Maria

    I have read the article that you linked to in your comment above. I have no problem understanding the paper since my B.S. is in the field of experimental psychology from Northeastern U. here in Boston, Ma. This paper comes out of a Psych Dept. as you well know and I have no problem whatsoever with the perspective of that field and I welcome these types of investigations. Even though I am a product of the exp. psych department, I want to point out that psych is not the only field I draw on when I think about topics that interest me. I need all of the knowledge that comes from all of the sciences all of the time! After I finished my B.S. I lived in a tribal society for three years and then on return to the States I decided that I needed to fill in around the edges with more college course work that I felt was lacking. What I want to point out here is that we can’t understand certain behaviors with just the knowledge that comes out of the psych dept. We need to reach for the big picture on these things. That big picture needs what E.O. Wilson calls consilience from the highest levels of a number of academic fields.

    To understand behaviors such as infanticide, rape, and all topics having to do with reproduction in humans, we can’t just take a very narrow view of the matter. We need to know about the information that is provided in that article but I will ask you to consider that there is much more to the story than what could possibly come out of the psych dept. – much as I am devoted to the dept. just personally. We need a consilience between the biology, anthropology, and sociology. We need skilled statisticians, primatologists and paleontologists too. We need the people who come out of all of these depts. and more to apply everything we know about evolution to review their knowledge through a framework of evolutionary theory to understand the deep motivations of some aspects of our behavior that just cannot be established by the narrow perspective of one paper from one psych dept.

    women in your text are escape goats for infanticide due to their “reproductive strategies”.

    Maria, I don’t think the women in that text are scape goats. I’m trying to understand what you mean by this. Are you saying that they are being unjustly blamed for something that’s not their fault?

    I’m disappointed to be accused of “pretty dubious” moral conclusions. Could you be more specific as to exactly what these conclusions of mine are?

    My conclusions, as I see it are that in the context of our deep evolutionary past, female humans act as active agents in the critical decision of how many offspring to produce and what amount of time should pass in the spacing of those births and what male will give the best genetic contribution in combination with her own to produce the best quality of offspring possible.

    Where are there any dubious moral conclusions there? If anything, I accuse an excessively pious, hypocritical public of the worst moral failure by setting these pregnant teen moms up for condemnation and punishment for something that exists in our species as a real solution to a very real problem. These girls who abandon and/or kill their neonates have been set up for cruel failure by their families and their blind-to-the-truth societies. Zero support and birth at too young an age are the two most prevalent factors in infanticide and abandonment. These are often the same thing, by the way. These girls and young women don’t deserve blame. They deserve help. That’s where I stand on this in regard to morality.

    After that I just want an unemotional analysis of the question shall I care for it. When I’m doing science I’m not interested in anyone’s feelings. I just want to establish the question correctly. Then let’s get the experimental design right, compile the stats and then draw useful conclusions. If someone is so uncomfortable with the topic that they can’t work through the process then they should step back, readjust their rose colored glasses and leave the rest of us to deal directly with the material. There are many uncomfortable subjects that have real life present day consequences that we desperately need to make progress on. Young women with no support for a pregnancy that they never wanted in the first place is exactly the kind of problem that we need to understand fully and take action to prevent. Again, I’m sure this is something we can agree on.

    Report abuse

  • There is not an adequate primate model of post natal depression. PND affects 10 to 15% of women at birth to some degree or another. Similarly there is no primate model for autism in primates. It appears to be a recent human evolutionary curse/blessing. One of the puzzles with autism is the gender difference in its apparent expression. Why so few female diagnoses? Only now are we starting to look for syndromes and behaviour sets that might signal these under-identified women (if they exist). PND may be one of these indicators. A hypothesis is that an undersensitivity to or underproduction of perinatal oxytocin may be part of this.

    The societal mix of an unwelcome (disapproved of etc. etc.) birth and the absence of socially positive re-inforcement of joy and pleasure for the PND prone, may add to the feeling of “impossibility” for the birth.

    Pro-sociality may be increasingly a culturally evolved skill that those lacking a natural, visceral trigger (like aspies) acquire through social learning. Women “on the autism spectrum” may be less obviously so, being more able or inclined or encultured to the pro-social skill. This would have not helped them in less pro-social enculturing and more oppressive times, nor would it have helped through the start of the oxytocin-aided bonding process from the third trimester onwards. It is notable that oxytocin has a role in milk let down and is correlated with PND. It may be that these stand not as cause and effect as once thought but as expressions of a common cause, insensitivity to or comparative absence of perinatal oxytocin.

    Report abuse

  • Hi, Phil, I was just sticking up for Laurie, although she doesn’t need my two cents. (A little patronizing, I guess.)

    In spite of my prodigious intellect I was unable to figure out who you were addressing in the above comment and whose side you are on.

    I left you one on the Good without God thread.
    Jan 7, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    Report abuse

  • 11
    maria melo says:

    My conclusions, as I see it are that in the context of our deep
    evolutionary past, female humans act as active agents in the critical
    decision of how many offspring to produce and what amount of time
    should pass in the spacing of those births and what male will give the
    best genetic contribution in combination with her own to produce the
    best quality of offspring possible.

    I don´t think it´s fair, perhaps James Watson would do a better job for that purpose (ya, really funny from me), it seems more a dream of a “play boy” (well at least someboy friend I had telling me about women that would like him to be father of their child… or yet scientist in the former Soviet Union donating homuncules children (with their intelligence- to the vast population of women receptive and thankful, but the case that a woman opts to have a baby wih disabily would certainly affect his image ? (just silly wondering)-

    Report abuse

  • 13
    maria melo says:

    Well, perhaps your view is fair afteral and respecting it perhaps a more happy mothering will come.
    Parenting is a complex subject, terms as “women reproductive strategies” seem to me ugly terms.

    Report abuse

  • 14
    maria melo says:

    Perhaps some primate females don´t make such serious calculatiion to choose who is the best father for her offspring but males can get furious when discovering that they are not the progenitor, not females, they will invest in their offspring naturally anyway.

    Report abuse

  • Maria

    We women have strategies. I ask you to consider that this is a good thing. It took eons of time to develop these strategies. The success of the woman and her children depend on her difficult decisions. If we were just wishy washy Stepford wives with no minds of our own then what would happen to us? We are not weak and we don’t let men decide these matters for us. We need to keep control over our decisions about when to become pregnant and how long to wait for another pregnancy to take place. Sometimes there are mistakes. This is very sad but for the good of that woman and for the good of the children she already has, sometimes we need to take action to remedy this mistake. If it’s for the good of all then let it happen in the most painless way possible. Don’t get hung up on the word strategies. Everyone is out there trying to get their own best deal in this life. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s part of our nature. It’s realistic. Mothering isn’t always a bed of roses you know. Things go wrong. There are terrible disappointments sometimes. I want to let women feel safe enough to be honest about this. If women can honestly say that they don’t want to raise their baby then we can find an ethical solution. When women can’t be honest then we will see all kinds of sad and tragic behavior. They will hide and sneak. This is bad for everyone. I don’t want that. I know that we agree on this Maria. 🙂

    Report abuse

  • 17
    maria melo says:

    well, I do certainly agree on this at last.

    Mothering isn’t always a bed of roses you know

    Yes I know that, and cannot imagine a greater pain for a mother other than rise her child in pain of not being able to afford for the satisfaction for all it´s needs, at least basic ones.

    (I remember a painting depicting a woman walking with a child in a path of thorns from my own faculty Wall which I remember sometimes).

    Report abuse

  • 20
    maria melo says:

    “Can you explain more about “parenthood as social institution?”

    “I must conclude that infanticide is a common tactic in the overall reproductive strategy of human females.”

    I guess I was thinking of marriage as a social insitution for protecting children and up bringing them- a dictionary real definition of marriage in anthropological terms, and I real meant it (as poliandric marriage etc), and really meant parenting is not a female exclusive invention, nor infanticide is (as a matter of fact I always thought it as a male thing), perhaps both? A psychologist once complained for his colleagues that thought marriage as a woman´s invention, he clearly didn´t agree.
    Well, you really seem to blame women for infanticide, and I am always too literal.

    Report abuse

  • 21
    maria melo says:

    Laurie B.

    Here´s another paper available online, for the sake of everyone, so that with formation on psychology make no mistake about the text you are “signaling twice” (a real linguistic signal important for you assuming it is important for others) for it deserves attention.
    Hope you enjoy it Laurie B.
    (I have attended lectures by Dr. Kim Bard, I don´t know to much about it really, I may be as curious as you)
    Wish I could have more time, I have at least 4 new Law diplomes after Summer to learn from the beginning, so that when I am going for the hearing of a child for instances, I can do it well according to new procedures completly new.

    Report abuse

  • 24
    maria melo says:

    I mean, graduation instead of formation

    (…) my B.S. is in the field of experimental psychology from
    Northeastern U. here in Boston, Ma.

    Report abuse

  • Maria

    I just finished reading the paper you linked to on comment Jan 12 at 12:48

    It was a good and useful paper and I’m keeping it in my collection for future reference. Mostly it dealt with the other primates and didn’t mention much about H. sapiens but my take away was, as the author points out, there is a wide variety of parenting styles amongst those other primates and we can learn about elements of our own sapiens parenting from the findings of this research. A paragraph from that paper that I think speaks directly to our discussion here is this one on page 69:

    Start quote >
    “Reflections on maternal behavior across primates and across environments has caused serious reconsideration of ‘Mother Nature’ (e.g., Hrdy, 1995; 2000), and the ‘Nurture Assumptions’ (Fairbanks, 2000). There is not a maternal instinct for warm and caring attention to infants; that is, there is not an instinct to provide care to infants that is always responsive to their needs. Mothers tend to provide care in balance with meeting their own reproductive needs: ‘good’ mothers are ones that “adjust and withhold parental care according to rules that promote the mother’s reproductive success, thus providing support for parental investment theory and contrary to the ‘ideal mother’ assumption” (Fairbanks, 2000, p. 23). However, when maternal conditions are poor, or when the infant’s probability of survival is low, then it can be advantageous to the mother to weigh her own survival against that of her infant. Therefore to cease investing any further energy into a current offspring in order to increase the mother’s chances of survival to raise more (or healthier) offspring later, is an expected outcome (Hrdy, 1995). ”
    End quote <

    Report abuse

  • Laurie, you’re a riot!
    Phil, I promise to read The Vital Question.
    Just read your comments re Schopenhauer, Democritus et al.
    (Let’s not forget Heraclitus!)
    As for Wittgenstein, I am still in the process of forming my opinion of this unique and disturbing thinker.
    Bye, for now.

    Report abuse

  • P.S. Read that one, Phil. Impressive. Nuanced. Thanks.
    You may have have missed this reply, on the same thread, posted:
    Jan 12, 2016 at 12:50 pm
    Gotta get going.

    Report abuse

  • 28
    maria melo says:

    Infanticide is known to occur in many primate species, but is
    generally thought of as a male trait. An exception in the realm of
    chimpanzee behavior was famously noted in the 1970s by Jane Goodall in
    her observations of Passion and Pom, a mother-daughter duo who
    cooperated in the killing and cannibalization of at least two infant
    offspring of other females. In the absence of significant additional
    evidence for such behavior among female chimpanzees, speculation had
    been that female-led infanticide represented pathological behavior, or
    was a means of obtaining nutritional advantage under some

    According to the authors, the new findings indicate that although
    low-level aggression between female chimpanzees is more commonly seen,
    the observed instances of infanticide indicate that deadly aggression
    is not a gender-specific trait in this species.
    Male Infanticide when occuring in some species is to accelarate female´s fertility so that the male could have his offspring, not as female reproductive strategy , curiously enough you mentioned woman instead of female, never mentioned men or male, not even a single time. what triggers my curiousity.

    Report abuse

  • Hi Maria

    I am well aware of male infanticide. I didn’t mention it because I don’t think it has to do with the paragraph that was presented. Our question here is:

    There is a child; its degree of relatedness to me is so and so; its chances of dying if I do not feed it are such and such; shall I feed it?’ Bearing decisions, on the other hand, are like this: ‘Shall I take whatever steps are necessary in order to bring a new individual into the world; shall I reproduce?’ To some extent, caring and bearing are bound to compete with each other for an individual’s time and other resources: the individual may have to make a choice: ‘Shall I care for this child or shall I bear a new one?’

    I suppose there is case for mentioning male infanticide as an effective reproductive strategy. They intend to reproduce and to do so they need to dispatch all of the young offspring that are keeping their mothers’ reproductive systems offline. Then they help raise the offspring that they are reasonably sure are their own. I suppose I could consider the possibility that males, when they have decided to reproduce set out on a program of trying to convince a female to go along with their plan. I feel like the paragraph isn’t really dealing with males but maybe I’m wrong about that. Don’t males (especially in the deeper past) take up their opportunities to reproduce where ever they find them? Rape is an option in male reproductive strategy too. Do men rape when they just can’t get a yes from a female when he decides that it’s time to reproduce? Is that all the other side of the question that is under discussion here?

    I know you didn’t like it when I presented the female side of this scenario but I feel like it’s us women who are on the front lines of this question: should I feed it, not men. But maybe this is just my personal bias. Thoughts?

    Report abuse

  • 30
    maria melo says:

    should I feed it, not men

    It spoils my romantic idea of parenting and family (more like birds), but only did I bear a child after asking my husband, not by the any accident, caring a child that you have to feed to more than 20 years is not na easy task, not even for na entire family, well lately I sometimes doubt shall I feed another dog or cat(s) (well more 20 years, i don´t know even if I will, taking into account that I smoke.

    Report abuse

  • 32
    maria melo says:

    A quote that has to do with the exposed view of Prof Dawkins (and I think I have read a serious arguing between Prof Dawkins and someone on subject, so that I wouldn´t dare to say it otherwise at this point). The argument is very clear and seems to me neutral, at least in the video, I am not against the natural world order.
    With reference to the fisrt paper, maltreatment, abandonment in primates in early age reflects on parental abilities later, indicating ontological affect behaviour.
    I don´t doubt at this point with your note here whatsoever, because I was never in denial.

    It really hurts me that in your text there is no reference to male/men as responsive for their offspring too.

    Report abuse

  • Maria
    I certainly acknowledge that many men are good providers to their children, but do you think that all men are good providers? Do you think that men and women in our society are equally dependable as providers to their own children? If that were true then why does the US need strict child support laws that force men to financially support the children that they have produced?

    Let’s not base our understanding of this on the current times. We humans lived in hunter-gatherer bands and tribes until just recently. The time that we’ve spent living in nuclear families is just a drop in the bucket and doesn’t tell us much about human family life.

    With the divorce rate being over 50% and the fact that our courts step in to force men to give financial support to their children, this doesn’t speak well for the success of the monogamous couple and the nuclear family in general. When we promote this model as the natural and good and correct situation for human families we are presenting what we wish to be true.

    Again, I am not interested in a warm and fuzzy feel good moment about happy family imagery. I am only interested in what is the truth of our reproductive strategies based on our evolutionary past. Males and females both engage in infanticide. There are reasons why this happens and I don’t care if the discussion of these reasons hurts someone’s feelings.

    Report abuse

  • 35
    maria melo says:

    Males and females both engage in infanticide

    “IVG” (Voluntary interruption of pregnancy), as it is designed legally is not infanticide, and it is not crime, perhaps education of young at scholar level is necessary for a responsible answer to provide them it information they need to better manage their sexual/emotional lives.

    I guess that´s a by a poor ontological reason that you call let´s say a reproductive cell an infant, and those were, those “lacks” are well doccumented in history too, I myself have studied carefylly one with the help of a huge bibliography indicated by my professor of history.

    Report abuse

  • 36
    maria melo says:

    It would be a “blank slate” from me that i would not mention the book, nor did I recall the author that organized wonderful lectures I attended, at least four times and her shearful book, engaging in the subject with a propper fun (she na happy person perhaps), it was not exactely my theme in history, but some ontological lacks are well documented by history too.
    I am afraid historians don´t engage in the creation of escape goats for ethical reasons.

    Report abuse

  • 37
    maria melo says:

    to financially support the children that they have produced?

    Marx, although materialist, thought the relation individual/social from a much more humane (and “christian”) way.
    Well, if the “product” was not one that you socially harvered, if you want a better “product”, well, produce it (aha ah)

    Report abuse

  • 38
    maria melo says:

    I see the huge importance for na ethogist, ethnologist, psychiatrit, historian…., to understand the ontogical psychological processes that we perceive the “other” is of such importance. At the beggining of the world mEn would be aware of themselves, then begun to ask if women would be also part of the same species… if negros and indians and children had souls, if primitives were a differnt line of another humanity, escape goats I think is particular important in psychiatry. So you’d think I don’t like the “other side of the story” that women are as meaninful as men or something (well it really is an escape goat)

    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.