What ISP's say to companies who want to use the internet, "Either you pay us to access your customers, or we break your kneecaps." This is about both monopolies and mafia business tactics.
I'm not sure if this is the place for an anecdote, but here we go. And just to give a warning, this is from an American perspective.
I am the first born. My mother has told me that she would could the amount of protein she would get each day during her pregnancy with me. If she didn't get enough she would each more or drink a large glass of milk to try and supplement her diet. She didn't drink soda either.
With my younger brother she tried to make sure she ate enough protein, though she gave up not drinking soda.
With the youngest, my sister, she was working part time during her pregnancy and wasn't able to watch what she ate like with either me or my brother.
This all being said, we are no where near malnutrition. There is a considerable size difference between me and my siblings. I am 6'4" and have considerably larger bone structure than my siblings. (I'm not fat/obese/heavy. I only weigh 193 lbs.)
My brother is just a 6' and considerably smaller than I am. My sister is smaller than my brother and has a similar bone structure.
Might there be a biological imperative to ensure that the first born is healthy. Then with the later children parent lose the need to ensure their children are as healthy.
> My brother is just a 6' and considerably smaller than I am.
That is already very large, please don't interpret this as a sign that your brother is less healthy than you. If you are considerably larger than 182cm, then by some measures you'd be viewed as being less healthy than your siblings because you're prone to all the problems large people have.
It is very likely you all three maxed out the size range available to you genetically and epigenetically by receiving adequate nourishment, as is common in industrial nations.
> Might there be a biological imperative to ensure that the first born is healthy
Probably not as such, but the psychological effect you're describing might create that impression: first-time parents obsess about everything because they don't want to make any mistakes. With subsequent children they realize they've been overthinking everything and they consciously apply what they learned the first time, instead of indiscriminately following through on every little thing that comes to their minds (like giving up soda).
It's also a very first-world way of thinking about children.
> Then with the later children parent lose the need to ensure their children are as healthy.
Again, I think you're postulating purpose where none exists, because you see a correlation between your "better" health and the amount of attention your mom applied to arbitrary details when she was carrying you to term.
Instead, evidence suggests that increased survival pressure in humans leads to an increase in the amount of children a couple has, and attention to individual children (including first born) goes down drastically.
My own anecdotal impressions of wealthy industrial societies imply that while first-time parents sweat arbitrary details, it's really the last child a couple has that receives special attention. Partly because the parents have better skills, but probably also because they know it's the last chance "to do everything right".
I think this is interesting, so I am sharing my story. I am the first born son, and I have two younger brothers, 2.5 and 7 years apart respectively. My mother said she took extra care in what she ate when she was pregnant with me, but she didn't give up any of the junk food stuff. Soda, coke, fast food like McDonald's, cake, etc.
When she was pregnant with the second one. Realizing she might have made some mistakes with her diet, she cut out soda and coke from her diet and ate less fast food. Especially since she wanted a daughter this time.
With the youngest, she worked part time as well. It's also during that time we moved, and she didn't have much time to watch she ate either.
There is not much size difference between me and the older younger brother. He is taller and leaner than me though. I am 6'1 and 205 lbs, and he is 6'2 and 180 lbs.
The youngest one is supposedly still growing. (Technically males stop at 25 right?) But he has always been smaller comparing to us when we were the same age. He is 5'10 and 185 lbs currently.
I think prenatal definitely play a role in a child's development and later life. And it's not always the case that the first born gets the best.
I don't think this is a biological imperative at all, rather I think it's just that experienced parents worry less. The first child teaches them that they can mess up a bit and the kid will turn out just fine. The second kid teaches that even more. Each successive kid gets less obsessive care not for biological reasons, but because the parents have become more confident in their parenting and more aware of how indestructible little kids can be (obviously not literally, but humans are quite resilient).
Size was a great heuristic for health for the entire history of the world up until maybe 50 years ago. If everyone's growth is stunted some to malnutrition then the biggest people are the least malnourished.
It doesn't hold as much these days but it still "feels" right and useful.
Like many statistical tools, the height charts doctors use are gaussian distributions and the inferences drawn from where an individual falls on that distribution do not boil down to "bigger === better."
Or tea. It's surprisingly refreshing, and contains some of the bitterness that beer has, but plain water lacks. Now, how about a nice black tea with some aromatic hops for finish. Delicious, nutritious, and non-intoxicating.
Clojure is more like scheme in that it only has a one scope environment. Common Lisp (and Lisp) are defined by having 2 scope in the environment. One scope for the functions and one scope for variables, if I remember correctly. An easy way to learn your way around lisp is to read and work through Graham's essay "Roots of Lisp": http://paulgraham.com/rootsoflisp.html
I know! In the US you have "free speech" zones. You can get fenced in and say whatever you like. How is that any better? We have governments that are entrenched and don't want to change. They use their powers and then the majority of people are shocked when they find out.
I don't think the world has changed much since WWII, just that the crimes are more nuanced and better hidden.
hmm just to state the obvious. the usa is not the same country i was born in as it is today. patriot act and surveillance shit. though i don't live there any more either.
