WOMEN AND REPRODUCTION It’s just data. In middle occupations, because women are

WOMEN AND REPRODUCTION

It’s just data.

In middle occupations, because women are more adaptable to changes in social circumstances (even if men are more adaptable to changes in technical and military circumstances), and given that as in any distribution, only a small number of women are genetically ‘worthy’ of reproduction (as are men), the economic value of women is higher than their reproductive value.

A woman can only birth so many children, and is only willing to undergo the physical costs of it. And can only bear the effort of raising so many children unless spaced enough apart that they raise those younger than them (which appears to be the best education possible). This means the most able women are least incentivized to reproduce and the least able women are most incentivized to reproduce.

This means that women are of more value in productivity than they are in maintaining replacement birth rates.

Women are the weak link in the chain of reproduction. They choose poorly. Their in-utero variation creates defects. They overinvest in underperformance. And they reproduce dysgenically.

If our choices are to coerce them back in the home, or to alleviate the burden of reproduction for the best, then it seems that if the technological solution is possible it is desirable. Although, I cannot see it being more ‘inexpensive’ than the traditional method, even if produced at consumer scale.

I mean, If I could raise six sons without a woman… imagine what that would look like? I mean, men would signal by breeding their own clans….. Modernity is not good for men. And breeding a clan and obviating the need for women except as entertainment is interesting.