"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
>
> >
> > This is because syphilis was not the first deadly venereal disease in
> > Europe; gonorrhea predates it.
> >
> This is accurate, but *because* gonorrhea had existed for a long time
> there was a natural resistance in the population. Syphilis was
> introduced into a population with no resistance and spread rapidly.
> During its earliest period, in many people, it caused a rapid progression
> to a condition where you made lepers look "good". That kind of
> a disease is bound to create a backlash in a population towards
> its causes (and the causes were well known, at least in Spain from
> the beginning).
>
> If HIV were a more deadly disease, there would probably be more rapid
> progress towards a vaccination (rather than the waffling you see today).
> We would also tend to have a selection for that fraction of the
> population with the mutations that confer resistance.
If HIV were more virulent, you would see a far more puritan movement in society. Those that engage in sexual and other practices which easily pass along HIV would be far greater pariahs than they are now. Take the heroin junkie for example. That person is responsible for more spread of aids than homosexual activity, but the fashion and entertainment industry has promoted the 'look' of the junkie for years as being desireable, and so many actors and actresses, musicians and models are or were junkies. If HIV were more virulent, smack addicts would have been rounded up a long time ago (as well as gays). This is simple mob psychology.
>
Really. Well, why hasn't it happened with 35 years of welfare society?
Its the same thing.
> >
> > Celtic women had sex with whomever they felt like (often a military
> > hero) and their offspring would be raised by their brothers.
>
> This makes sense, women can adopt to open sexual practices so long
> as they are confident that the children will be cared for. It
> also makes sense in certain societies to try to breed better warriors.
>
> > Re: taxes for child support...
> >
> > What's in it for me?
> >
> Well, universal care for children frees women to sleep with
> with someone for his desirability, unconcerned with regard
> to his resource base.
>
> You could be poor but if you can come up with cute, funny, strong,
> a good "rating" by the independent panel (:-)) ... you would have
> more women after your buns.
>
> >
> > With the advent of birth control and legal abortion, sex is no longer
> > particularly tied to reproduction, and hasn't been for decades. Women
> > are still pickier than men.
>
> Exactly, even though we have removed one of the primary reasons
> women had to be picky, we haven't removed the genetic programming
> for "pickyness"!
>
> >
> > Even if the government was giving me tons of money to have babies, I
> > would still have to invest years of personal effort in raising those
> > children.
>
> In our society yes, but not in certain tribal societies or other
> countries. It always amazes me at the number of single mothers there
> were and to some degree still are in Russia. The communist system
> (for all its faults) in combination with extended families provided
> enough support that single motherhood was not really difficult.
Considering what a large percentage of Russian males who are vodka junkies, its no wonder there are so many single mothers.. they'd rather not have such pathetic creatures around.
>
> >
> > Giving out money to support children is a great way to get birth rates
> > to outstrip resource growth rates. China is desperately trying to
> > control birth rates coercively while financially supporting the children
> > that are born.
>
> This isn't true in every country. In France and some other European
> countries they *are* providing government subsidies for people to
> have children because they are near or below the replacement rate.
> In order to keep the economies growing, they have to allow immigration
> which creates "highly undesirable" (I presume) cultural pollution.
> So it is politically acceptable and even necessary to promote
> baby-making by the nationals.
The problem they find is that the more educated a person is, the less likely they are to reproduce, not to mention the disincentive that cultural apathy has on birth rates.