<p>any person that says they would spank their kids is completely ridiculous. do you have any idea the amount of scientific research that has been done proving how ineffective and destructive spanking can be. i am never and would never lay hands on my kids. i was never once hit by my parents and i was a good kid. it is absolutely crazy to think that the only way to manage kids is to spank them. if that is the only way you can control your kids, then do everyone a favor and dont have them in the first place.</p>
<p>and to the people that try and differentiate between spanking and beating. it doesnt matter. you are still inflicting physical pain on your children. that is not the way to handle situations. learn how to truly be an affective parent because there are many ways to manage children without using such inhuman methods</p>
<p>
I always find posts like this very interesting from an evolutionary perspective. I understand the ethics of doing so, but spending time and energy always strikes me as uniquely human from an evolutionary perspective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My sister and I never acted up in public. Neither of us were spanked. </p>
<p>Spanking does nothing. I have had kids who have been spanked literally say to me “So what? It’ll hurt for a bit and then it’s over. No real consequences.” </p>
<p>My parents used to give me the silent treatment and such. Trust me, hurts much worse.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand what you mean. </p>
<p>According to evolution, we’re not supposed to have more than two or three kids naturally survive until adulthood. That’s what’s supposed to keep our population in check. We no longer have checks and balances by mother nature because of modern medicine. That is why we’re screwing up the planet.</p>
<p>
The goal of natural selection is to out compete other organisms by passing your genes to as many children as possible. We don’t TYPICALLY have more than two or three survive into adulthood, but under natural selection you would WANT to. I’m not saying adoption is right or wrong, I’m saying it’s evolutionarily curious because you are expending resources on something that does not carry your genes.
Evolution/natural selection does NOT keep our population in check; limitations on resources and competition from others do. In fact, in order to be as “evolutionarily successful” as possible, an individual does not want the population of its fellow individuals kept in check at all.</p>
<p>That is why there is an “overpopulation problem” today - humans became TOO successful. This makes sense from an individualistic standpoint, because given the opportunity to have more kids, one would typically take it. Our natural instincts created by eons of natural selection led to the current population problem. Things generally stay in equilibrium, as other organisms evolve a way to counter another organisms competitive advantage, but with humans, this does not exist. Because of this lack of competition, especially in the past 100 years, population has exploded.</p>
<p>Basically my point is: according to have evolution, we’re supposed to have as many kids as feasible. It has become more feasible to have more kids. Therefore, more kids. That leads to overpopulation.</p>
<p>What I was saying is curious about this situation is that people with the means to have another child are adopting other people’s children, instead of having their own. From an evolutionary standpoint, this is unprecedented. </p>
<p>No other organisms has ever become so successful that it has had to impose limits on itself. Interesting, would you agree?</p>