I agree with a lot of what you wrote here, but I do have one concern. Throughout your piece, you alluded to the notion that people would be far better off in general if they were married. Not only for the economic and stability benefits, but also for the obvious boon this would be for children.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote here, but I do have one concern. Throughout your piece, you alluded to the notion that people would be far better off in general if they were married. Not only for the economic and stability benefits, but also for the obvious boon this would be for children.
My question is, would it not be more economically prudent to simply make sure that birth control (in various forms) was much cheaper and more widely accessible (as well as adoption), as opposed to simply saying people need to be married so that they don't have one-parent kids?
Sex should not be something that is only viable if you are married and make enough money to support kids...that's not how it's supposed to work. Not only do we Not personally need to have kids in order to contribute to the tribal/farm workload anymore, but there's 8 billion of us on this planet now. If anything there's too many of us...but that's probably a different argument.
I mean, it's one thing to say someone who is poor and barely getting by should not have kids...most can probably agree with that. But it's quite another to say that because of that, everyone who wants to raise kids should be married. Anyone who has enough time and money to devote to raising kids can and should do so if they want.
I agree with making birth control free and/or easily accessible for both sexes. It would solve a great deal. An experiment in this in Colorado a while back showed that doing this can reduce teenage pregnancy. It was discontinued for lack of funding.
That said, our culture is addicted to legislating morality. This is the bugaboo we must get past to create effectual policies based on logic. We can do it, but first we have to change our minds.
For that same millennia life expectancy was 30, we often died from simple ankle sprains, and medicine didn't really exist.
I mean, we also are built to hunt and gather for our food, and not spend so much time reading and learning. We've immensely evolved socially and mentally by just about every metric, but because our bodies lag behind we should stay in the stone age?
Sexual reproduction's purpose is the continued propagation of our species via genetic variation. Seeing how the planet is overwhelmingly teeming with human beings now, that purpose (at least for the time being) is no longer of paramount importance to our species. Especially since this is the only planet we live on.
So...then what could be an alternate reason for not wanting birth control or sex outside marriage? Cultural and/or religious reasons. Thinking we all should go back to the prude times of yesteryear and keep sex inside of marriage has nothing to do with biology. It's usually someone pushing their religious beliefs on you.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote here, but I do have one concern. Throughout your piece, you alluded to the notion that people would be far better off in general if they were married. Not only for the economic and stability benefits, but also for the obvious boon this would be for children.
My question is, would it not be more economically prudent to simply make sure that birth control (in various forms) was much cheaper and more widely accessible (as well as adoption), as opposed to simply saying people need to be married so that they don't have one-parent kids?
Sex should not be something that is only viable if you are married and make enough money to support kids...that's not how it's supposed to work. Not only do we Not personally need to have kids in order to contribute to the tribal/farm workload anymore, but there's 8 billion of us on this planet now. If anything there's too many of us...but that's probably a different argument.
I mean, it's one thing to say someone who is poor and barely getting by should not have kids...most can probably agree with that. But it's quite another to say that because of that, everyone who wants to raise kids should be married. Anyone who has enough time and money to devote to raising kids can and should do so if they want.
I agree with making birth control free and/or easily accessible for both sexes. It would solve a great deal. An experiment in this in Colorado a while back showed that doing this can reduce teenage pregnancy. It was discontinued for lack of funding.
That said, our culture is addicted to legislating morality. This is the bugaboo we must get past to create effectual policies based on logic. We can do it, but first we have to change our minds.
For that same millennia life expectancy was 30, we often died from simple ankle sprains, and medicine didn't really exist.
I mean, we also are built to hunt and gather for our food, and not spend so much time reading and learning. We've immensely evolved socially and mentally by just about every metric, but because our bodies lag behind we should stay in the stone age?
Sexual reproduction's purpose is the continued propagation of our species via genetic variation. Seeing how the planet is overwhelmingly teeming with human beings now, that purpose (at least for the time being) is no longer of paramount importance to our species. Especially since this is the only planet we live on.
So...then what could be an alternate reason for not wanting birth control or sex outside marriage? Cultural and/or religious reasons. Thinking we all should go back to the prude times of yesteryear and keep sex inside of marriage has nothing to do with biology. It's usually someone pushing their religious beliefs on you.