Fascinating! MHO is that there are two factors which de-optimize (relative to evolution) women's behavior in contemporary society:
Historically there wasn't much in the way of contraception, and women had frequent sex with their husbands (in order to keep them around), and hence, serial pregnancies. Where "family planning" was done was th…
Fascinating! MHO is that there are two factors which de-optimize (relative to evolution) women's behavior in contemporary society:
Historically there wasn't much in the way of contraception, and women had frequent sex with their husbands (in order to keep them around), and hence, serial pregnancies. Where "family planning" was done was the selective infanticide of newborns. There's a bunch of interesting psychology around that; the factors that seem relevant to me are: (1) post-partum depression, eliminating the default human over-optimism, allowing the mother to accurately judge the cost/benefit value of *this* child relative to the circumstances, (2) the presence of the baby activating the mother's desire to protect it, (3) the correlation of cuteness in babies with survival chances (chubby cheeks vs. an animal-like face indicating high vs. low birth weight, aversion to physical abnormalities, many genetic abnormalities causing unusual facial appearance). (That last point has surfaced in hospital slang, "FLK" in notes meaning "funny-looking kid", indicating that the baby should be screened for genetic problems.)
The other factor is that the baseline, unavoidable death rate of children in contemporary society is very low. A couple of generations ago (for me) (circa 1890 or 1930), couples in the US would have maybe 4 children and expect 3 to survive to a successful adulthood. Given that reality, mothers' actions based on their worries would be limited by awareness that lots of actions would have insignificant safety consequences relative to the unavoidable risks. Indeed, to the point that the perceived benefits of fretting more about existing children would be less than the perceived benefits of producing more children. Compared to my parents' generation, where the assumption was that one could have 2 children and expect both to survive to adulthood with only "reasonable" amounts of worrying, and the contemporary drive to produce "one perfect child".
That is an interesting theory of post-partum depression. I have always assumed that it is a modern phenomenon arising from the isolated conditions for parents in high-tech society. But when you say it, it makes sense to see it as an adaptive phenomenon.
Fascinating! MHO is that there are two factors which de-optimize (relative to evolution) women's behavior in contemporary society:
Historically there wasn't much in the way of contraception, and women had frequent sex with their husbands (in order to keep them around), and hence, serial pregnancies. Where "family planning" was done was the selective infanticide of newborns. There's a bunch of interesting psychology around that; the factors that seem relevant to me are: (1) post-partum depression, eliminating the default human over-optimism, allowing the mother to accurately judge the cost/benefit value of *this* child relative to the circumstances, (2) the presence of the baby activating the mother's desire to protect it, (3) the correlation of cuteness in babies with survival chances (chubby cheeks vs. an animal-like face indicating high vs. low birth weight, aversion to physical abnormalities, many genetic abnormalities causing unusual facial appearance). (That last point has surfaced in hospital slang, "FLK" in notes meaning "funny-looking kid", indicating that the baby should be screened for genetic problems.)
The other factor is that the baseline, unavoidable death rate of children in contemporary society is very low. A couple of generations ago (for me) (circa 1890 or 1930), couples in the US would have maybe 4 children and expect 3 to survive to a successful adulthood. Given that reality, mothers' actions based on their worries would be limited by awareness that lots of actions would have insignificant safety consequences relative to the unavoidable risks. Indeed, to the point that the perceived benefits of fretting more about existing children would be less than the perceived benefits of producing more children. Compared to my parents' generation, where the assumption was that one could have 2 children and expect both to survive to adulthood with only "reasonable" amounts of worrying, and the contemporary drive to produce "one perfect child".
That is an interesting theory of post-partum depression. I have always assumed that it is a modern phenomenon arising from the isolated conditions for parents in high-tech society. But when you say it, it makes sense to see it as an adaptive phenomenon.