In article: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950216084602.6365B-100000 at corona> Patrick O'Neil
<patrick at corona> writes:
> It could certainly help but think of what this would mean in terms of you
> as a parent. You would be taking care of your children for however long
> it took for them to mature. Instead of 18 to 22 years of rearing per
> child, you could end up with 20 to 30 years of parenting per child. Of
> course, such a daunting reality might itself lead to a lower birthrate as
> people who couldn't handle the extra time opted out of having kids.
>
Why would you need to maintain children who may be sexually immature but
mentally quite capable of taking place in society?
One might as well argue that monks and nuns have to be maintained by their
parents.
Our society puts anyone who is not paired off as a second class citizen.
This is by the by ... I don't think delayed puberty is necessarily any more
preferable to putting contraceptive devices into a baby at birth and
requiring a government license to remove them.
The answer to population growth is to make people affluent and so interested
in life generally that they don't see the need to produce lost of children
or have the time for it. This method is the only one really known to work.
--
Sincerely, ****************************************
* Publisher of Longevity Report *
John de Rivaz * Fractal Report *
* details on request *
****************************************
**** What is the point of life if it ends in death? ****
