111–113 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which given life expectancy 2000 years ago that would probably be equivalent to today's 60+.
Average life expectancy is driven by early age mortality though, guessing that if you get past that gauntlet, aging happens at roughly the same rate as now (less advanced medicine but perhaps better nutrition?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why breed when you're certain in advance that your children will be losers? They can wake up early, study hard, work hard and they will every time lose against children (now grandchildren) of rich boomers. Your kids will see them passing by in Porsche, or speaking how they casually bought an island on Adriatic.
Your line of reasoning is very shortsighted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your line of reasoning is very shortsighted.
Why? Children will have to emigrate or at least move far away, you'll meet them once or twice a year, or every two years, unable to create any bond with grandchildren. So you basically only pass your genes.
> Children will have to emigrate or at least move far away, you'll meet them once or twice a year, or every two years, unable to create any bond with grandchildren.
That is not true in general, and a lot depends on how you behave as a parent. In the year 2026 where remote-working is possible (sometimes only occasionally) if your children avoid spending time with you it's most likely that you were a shitty parent, not that they really really can't.