Rod Speed wrote:
"Stephen Cole" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 20/08/2019 15:25, Stephen Cole wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Cole wrote:
Trying to use children with cancer as political ammunition is beneath
contempt Steve.
I'm in favour of children with cancer having an unbroken supply of
medication. Why aren't you, Brian?
Just children, then? Other cancer patients don't matter?
Women and children first, OM. First law of chivalry. HTH.
That might make sense now, but I have often thought that in the past it
would have meant the husband/father dying and his dependents finding
themselves destitute.
Perhaps, but I think it has an explanation if you consider biology; the
genetic imperative demands that a persons (the mans) offspring are
protected and nurtured well enough by them to ensure the continuation of
the genetic line, so €śwomen and children first€ť and a husband sacrificing
himself to save them makes sense in that regard.
That line cant really fly given that if the wife and brats dont
survive, the male can just get another wife and produce more
brats and continue the line that way. The wife and brats without
the male arent likely to be able to survive without him.
But the logic is that to sire a new line with a replacement woman requires
a huge investment of energy and resources, not to mention time, whereas
doing what you can to ensure the survival of the existing wife and child
both saves that and also protects the energy and resources already invested
into them, if you see what I mean.
--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur