What have I done?
And as it is impulse based, getting pregnant is not always well planned. Furthermore even if it is well planned, circumstances can change in 9 months. So at the time of birth it could be realized that this pregnancy was an error.
How on Earth could a pregnancy be an error?
For the offspring to support one, it must be the right number, with the right timing, under the right social cicumstances and of decent quality.
If for example its female and male would be preferable for supporting, discarding the female and get pregnant again soon is more efficient, than keeping the female alive, as it might prolong the time to the next pregnancy and it will cost resources not avaible for the hopefully next male child.
While there may be optimization in having a male over a female, or v.v, generally I would say male and female are fairly interchangeable. There is not much difference in the physical or mental abilities of the average male vs. the average female. The only reason one might need a female over a male or v.v. is if you need even more children, and lack one or the other to make a mating pair.
Even then, any new member of a community provides resources for this community, regardless of gender - at least, if this member is put to good use. (Not all resources come from conventional desk jobs, after all.)
So any offspring, if allowed to live, can be an advantage.
Or the social circumstances are such, that the long term prospects are reduced, e.g. pregnant although promised to some “good” husband and the quality of avaible husbands is reduced if someone knows about the child (therefore auctioning the child is not an option).
While there may be a quantity drop, I know of no quality drop in fiancées of already pregnant women. Why would there be if he is already resigned (or more likely attracted) to the knowledge that she is with child?
So on the individual level a lot of survival optimizing reasons for infanticide exist.
For the whole society infanticide is only a problem, if it happens to often. The romans build an empire, while infanticide was legal.
It may have survived under these conditions. But when Rome began to decay in the 300s and 400s, these practises continued at a time when Rome could not afford to lose a single life. The population of Rome herself dwindled to half of its highest population from the peak of the Empire to its fall due to infanticide and related practises (abortion and contraception).
No, survival instincts only work, in case of direct danger. In case of indirect or long term danger (e.g. smoking) survival instincts have reduced importance.
Interesting point. That would explain the population collapse Rome experienced during its fall - or the population collapse we will be experiencing around the world in 40 years’ time. Society, like man, does not change its ways until it begins to feel a pinch - nay, a strong grip - it cannot resolve with tonics, creams, and shortcuts.
If survival requires certain qualities, which can be identified at birth, infanticide is beneficial for survival, as the resources wasted on unfit off spring is reduced, this was the approach of Sparta.
Also a good point. I might mention, perhaps in vain, that even the weakest and most crippled contribute something to society: someone who needs others. That is, in economic terms, a demand sector. And there are some people who just need to be needed.
The resource investment between birth and productive age is big compared to the prior investment. So opting out of the deal suggested by the child (feed me and you can educate me into being your supporter later) can be rational.
But the payoff is much bigger. So while the cost can be quite high, the more you invest, the much more you get back. Many older people with large families that have grown up and had families of their own can attest to this. On the converse, those who have smaller or no families often end up having less support and end up having less by the ends of their lives. That is because people gain value over time (by virtue of what they contribute to society and to their parents). On the other hand, money and valuables
lose value over time because they remain the same in an economy that never deflates.
Lets discuss infanticide only. While more and well raised children are good, for this prohibition of infanticide is not necessary, the romans objectively had enough sons to conquer the mediterran world, as the greeks had enough sonds 200 years prior to conquer persia.
Furthermore the need for “quality” children would indicate infanticide of handicapped children is preferable.
True; however, more children could have made the empire stronger, richer, and less prone to invasion by those nasty barbarians that sacked Rome. Also, since people don’t live forever, more children would have eventually been needed, anyway.
Quality is still a good argument, though. However, I still believe (and history has plenty of examples to back this up) that even physical and mental cripples can contribute value to society. Significantly less (in monetary terms) than normal people. But they contribute nonetheless, even just a sink for resources to be sold to. Demand is part of an economy, too.
?