I hear that.

But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input means only so much. If they stay together.

If they stay together.

If they stay together.

Now that education is being restructured and college is no longer seen as the great, golden, shining good it once was... you don't have to limit childbearing to the number of college educations you can provide.

Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.

I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.

The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary, to make life more comfortable.

R maybe be beating the snot out of K.

R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male. And the other half help with the younger children, so he's good all the way around. He can't lose.

Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.

There is only one source of numerous humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.

I hear that.

But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input means only so much. If they stay together.

If they stay together.

If they stay together.

Now that education is being restructured and college is no longer seen as the great, golden, shining good it once was...

Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.

I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.

The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary, to make life more comfortable.

R maybe be beating the snot out of K.

R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male. And the other half help with the younger children, so he's good all the way around. He can't lose.

Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.

There is only one source of numerous humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.

I hear that.

But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input means only so much. If they stay together.

If they stay together.

If they stay together.

Now that education is being restructured and college is no longer seen as the great, golden, shining good it once was...

Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.

I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.

The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary, to make life more comfortable.

R maybe be beating the snot out of K.

R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male. And the other half help with the younger children, so he's good all the way around. He can't lose.

Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.

There is only one source of humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.

I hear that.

But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input means only so much. If they stay together.

If they stay together.

If they stay together.

Now that education is being re-stuctured and college is no longer seen as the great, golden, shining good it once was...

Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.

I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.

Every family should have one successful K style sibling with two children who go far, and another sibling whose wife doesn't impress and who has seven kids, all nice, and one seems bright. That one may be assisted by his K cousins.

The reality of course is that the two child family contains one clever but nervous girl and one hopeless boy who one hopes won't do anything worse than horse around a little. But he's no shining heir.

The reality of the two child family is it often contains one failure. Perhaps BECAUSE of being such a small family.

The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary to make life more comfortable.

R maybe be beating the snot out of K. But R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male, and the other half help with the younger children, so he's good.

Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.

There is only one source of humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.

I hear that.

But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input means only so much. If they stay together.

If they stay together.

If they stay together.

Much depends on the mother's putting the kids before everything, and being cheerfully willing to do without the usual nonsense.

Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.

I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.

Every family should have one successful K style sibling with two children who go far, and another sibling whose wife doesn't impress and who has seven kids, all nice, and one seems bright. That one may be assisted by his K cousins.

The reality of course is that the two child family contains one clever but nervous girl and one hopeless boy who one hopes won't do anything worse than horse around a little. But he's no shining heir.

The reality of the two child family is it often contains one failure. Perhaps BECAUSE of being such a small family.

The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary to make life more comfortable.

R maybe be beating the snot out of K. But R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male, and the other half help with the younger children, so he's good.

Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.

There is only one source of humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.

I hear that.

But the idea of "increased parental investment" with r strategy has a flattened curve. The parents are not such geniuses that their investment means all that much anyway. Beyond food, clothing, a hug, and a small number of non-negotiable rules, their input mean only so much. If they stay together.

If they stay together.

If they stay together.

Much depends on the mother's putting the kids before everything, and being cheerfully willing to do without the usual nonsense.

Both R and K strategies have their vices and virtues.

I think you are seeing that K is not always the way to bet, indeed your own words seem to hint at that if I understand you correctly.

Every family should have one successful K style sibling with two children who go far, and another sibling whose wife doesn't impress and who has seven kids, all nice, and one seems bright. That one may be assisted by his K cousins.

The reality of course is that the two child family contains one clever but nervous girl and one hopeless boy who one hopes won't do anything worse than horse around a little. But he's no shining heir.

The reality of the two child family is it often contains one failure. Perhaps BECAUSE of being such a small family.

The lurking villain is the man's wanting his wife's salary to make life more comfortable.

R maybe be beating the snot out of K. But R doesn't need luxuries; his idea of fun is yet another child. He doesn't need other toys. Half his children are useful because they are male, and the other half help with the younger children, so he's good.

Bad laws? Who passed them? Humans. You don't have enough humans.

There is only one source of humans, and it isn't a woman with a good job.