Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

> > Isn't that growth?  
> 

No.  People only had more than the "replacement" number of children because 
of (most importanlty) three things:

Disease
War
And the notion of a growth economy


The first is not a serious problem any more
The second need not be, and in fact we've probably priced wars out of our 
reach
There's no reason to have the second.


The old paradigm was that the eldest suviving sib inherited the property and 
any younger surviving sibs made their way in the world, very often in the 
military.

The current paradigm is that as soon as a child is 18, they are 
unceremoneously booted out of the nest and the middleaged empty nest copuple 
runs amuck in 
the world then as elderly people wonder who is going to look out for them and 
pay the expenses.

In a better paradigm, one that migh well be coming (or coming back) suppose 
each couple had two children that survive to adulthood (and in modern times 
this means just about everyone) and we have a farmstead that is 
multi-generational.  On sib takes over the farm in due time, marrying someone 
in similar 
circumstances, and the other sib marrys someone who is taking over their 
family farm.

No growth needed at all.

This is only one out of many, many different possibities for a no-growth 
economy.

James