Why Men Will Have to Share Their Wives in the CK

[_sock puppet]

"Why men will have to share their wives in the CK"--because promising the CK will be an eternal orgy is the only way to convince men not to participate in orgies in this life?

[_KevinSim]

I guess kevinsim isn't interested in exploring this idea. I'm shocked, I tell you, just shocked.

Beastie, you spoke too soon. While you were posting this I was putting together my response to your original article.

[_KevinSim]

However, in antiquity, the infant mortality rate was much higher than today. There is no reason to suspect that the ratio of male to female infant death would change as the numbers increase or decrease.

Beastie, why do you think that there "is no reason to suspect that the ratio of male to female infant death would change as the numbers increase or decrease"?

Look at this chart here (I tried to copy it but the format is messed up and I am rushed again)

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/Ch.1_2001.pdf

What exactly did you mean by "this chart"? I saw several tables and figures, but wasn't sure which one you're referring to.

It sounds like you're hoping the infant mortality rates in antiquity would be better than today, unless I've misunderstood you in my current state of fatigue.

You've misunderstood me (in your current state of fatigue); I very much agree with you that the mortality rate was probably higher in ancient times.

I'm sorry to rush on this, particularly after prodding you to answer, but it is late for me right now and I risk making further typos and goofs if I continue. I'll try to come back tomorrow.

I'll "see" you tomorrow then!

[_moksha]

Does the current LDS Church stand by the former idea that women will be reassigned to Celestial males? I would think this is an idea we don't know much about because it stemmed from the freely speculative polygamy era. Can such a prognostication driven by the libido hold up to current Mormon scrutiny by our wise and mature leaders?

[_beastie]

"Why men will have to share their wives in the CK"--because promising the CK will be an eternal orgy is the only way to convince men not to participate in orgies in this life?

Heh. I do believe that some LDS men cling to this comforting idea of multiple partners in the next life, as a sort of compensation for the sexual deprivation of this life. I'm not saying all LDS men are sexually deprived, but I think many are. And they certainly didn't get to experience multiple partners in their youth, as nonLDS often do.

[_beastie]

Beastie, I couldn't find the mentioned linked chart. I guess the question I would ask you is, do you have any way of knowing that the ratio of boys dying before the age of eight and girls dying before, is anywhere near 1.3 in antiquity? If not, doesn't that throw the 101,105,835 figure into doubt? Isn't it possible that that figure could be much less than that, due perhaps to the ratio reducing to 1.1 before 1300 CE, perhaps?

I think the easier and, hopefully, less-prone-to-typos way of responding to you is taking on one idea at a time, as time permits for me.

The reason there is no cause to suspect that the male disadvantage was less in antiquity has to do with why infant males are at a disadvantage. This article does a good job explaining this phenomenon:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2278210/

Infant males are more vulnerable and prone to death than infant females in every area, but there are a couple stand out in particular.

Infant females have a hardier immune system, which means they are less prone to die from infection. In antiquity, infection was a higher risk due to unsanitary practices and lack of adequate antibiotic treatment. The other notable factor is difficulty of birth. Prior to hospitalization and use of C-sections, infant males were also more prone to die because they were more prone to have difficult births, due to larger head and body size. Also, males are more apt to be premature. In antiquity, all of these factors would have resulted in excess infant male deaths. All of these are documented in the article I just linked. I'm going to assume if you're interested enough you'll read the article, so I don't have to take the time to copy and paste the pertinent information.

Modernization and improved nutrition obviously reduce infant mortality rates overall, which is why using the relatively low 8% provides a built-in cushion. This book provides more information on infant mortality rates.

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/other_books/Ch.1_2001.pdf

I can't copy and paste the table so will just share the pertinent data, which you can see on this table:

Table 1–4. Life Expectation and Infant Mortality, Both Sexes Combined, 33–1875 A.D.

Acient Rome, between 33-285 AD, infant mortality per 1,000 was 329, which means a percentage of 32.9.

England, between 1301–1425, infant mortality per 1,000 was 218, which means a percentage of 21.8.

And so on. Of course, you accept that infant mortality rates were much higher in antiquity anyway. What you have to accept is that the sex ratio would not have been so different in antiquity as to erase the overwhelming excess of infant males deaths, figured cumulatively over the years. I also share these percentages to show why 8% overall average is a very conservative estimate, which I used also to provide a cushion for the China effect. The infant mortality rates began to noticeably decline with the advent of modernity, the use of hospitals and improved sanitation. However, the infant male disadvantage actually worsened during this overall period of improvement, because infant females, being hardier to begin with, responded more readily to the improvements in environment. Of course, the raw numbers would still be less, but the ratio worse. This article that I linked earlier discusses that phenomenon:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2278210/

It is only very recently that the ratio has begun to improve for males, but still more infant males than females die, and it will always be so, due to the inherent vulnerability of the male fetus. It's an ugly truth to face, but nature just views the male sex as more expendable, and always has. It makes sense in terms of evolution, of course. Males are expendable in terms of reproduction. I'm not sure how believers who think God is controlling everything explain this ugly fact, but there it is.

[_beastie]

I guess kevinsim isn't interested in exploring this idea. I'm shocked, I tell you, just shocked.

Beastie, you spoke too soon. While you were posting this I was putting together my response to your original article.

I apologize for my impatience. I have discussed this numerous times with believers in the past, and it's often ignored by the males in particular. I honestly think they are just too uncomfortable with the idea to even consider it. I think that is very telling. It's an idea they're too uncomfortable with to even consider, but expect females to accept. And that's my entire point in these conversations. I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in an afterlife, anyway, so I don't really think you're going to have to share your wife. I just want to you to consider that maybe you will, so you better appreciate what the LDS church has asked of their females.

[_beastie]

That's about one out of every twelve births resulting in a child who won't live past eight. I'm not sure I believe so many don't live that long.

Actually, these numbers are for infant mortality alone. Numbers that would factor in childhood deaths until the age of 8 would be far more significant, of course, and still retain the male disadvantage due to the less hardy immune systems.

The sad fact of the history of this planet is that LOTS of children died. Almost all families endured this tragedy. Childbirth and childhood are notoriously dangerous periods, and high death rates during these periods were part of the reason for the overall low average life expectancy in antiquity.

[Tator]

Even if you are off by an order of magnitude, that still makes only a difference between women and men in the Celestial Kingdom of one billion; that's still significantly less than the two to four billion figure Spektical gave on the other thread. But if you click at a number of the places on the chart it becomes pretty obvious that the overall average is much less than 8%, so Spektical appears to have been off even more.

Skeptical's numbers will be eventually proven correct, I am certain. I deliberately used very conservative estimates in order to provide a cushion to defend against the anticipated argument of the China affect and females being more devoted church members. My goal was not to provide a truly accurate estimate, but instead to demonstrate the overwhelming numbers you are up against. I was being ultra-conservative in several ways. Skeptical was just being more accurate.

Look again at this table I linked earlier:

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/totalpopulation.htm

Again, I can't copy and paste the table so will just repeat some numbers. (I just can't get this table formatted right, sorry. Look at the link to see the correct format.)

Year, Total Pop, Births per 1,000, Births between benchmarks
8000 B.C. - 5,000,000 - 80 - 1,137,789,769
1 A.D. - 300,000,000 - 80 - 46,025,332,354
1200 - 450,000,000 - 60 - 26,591,343,000
1650 - 500,000,000 - 60 - 12,782,002,453

Now look at the difference between the total population in 1 AD and 1200 AD. The total population grew by 150 million. Yet look at the number of births that occurred between those two benchmarks: over 46 BILLION. That is an ASTRONOMICAL infant mortality rate.

That's why the 8% is such a fair number. I actually got this from another source, but I found it in 2006 and didn't think to save or bookmark it, but I think that it's a fair number given the extraordinarily high infant mortality rates throughout the history of this planet as well as the fact that underprivileged countries today still have an infant mortality rate of higher than 8%,

[_beastie]

Here's another source that demonstrates the tragically high infant mortality rate in antiquity:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8jSsAA ... ty&f=false

Page 21 estimates the infant mortality rate in medieval Italian peasant families at 50-60%.