Friday fun: The answer to the ultimate IF question

I had a super fun post detailing the week that led up to my miscarriage, but after I wrote most of it I broke down in tears at my desk and decided to finish it another time. Lucky for you. :)

I'm trying to get back into commenting more regularly on everyone's blogs, and was reading Lookingforaplussign's most recent post about her bummer of an IVF consult this morning. (Go over and give her some encouragement and hugs if you would, please.) Something she said reminded me of something my acupuncturist told me this week, which I shared with CJ and which I am going to share with you right now in even more detail. Prepare to be blown away.

So. The ultimate IF question: Why is it that people who can't handle/support children can have them at will, while so many who can support them are infertile? (A la "Idiocracy.")

The comment from my acupuncturist that led me to the answer to the ultimate IF question: Human beings are not very good breeders. This is because we're predators and at the top of the food chain. Most predators are the same way - consider, for example, bears as opposed to mice. Bears only have a couple of cubs every few years or whatever, compared to mice, who might have 10 in a litter, and several litters per year. But bears eat a lot more than mice do, and if they were as prolific as mice they would soon outnumber their prey and die out.

Humans are even farther up the food chain so it follows that we're even poorer breeders than other predators (regardless of whether you eat other animals, you're still one of us). Why are we so far up the food chain? Technically we could be eaten by other animals (and sometimes are), but we have the intellectual capacity to better protect ourselves, not to mention to create and use tools that help us eat other less fortunate species.

If less intelligent species are lower on the food chain than smarter ones, it would follow that those humans on the lower end of the intelligence scale would also be lower on the food chain, and therefore more prolific than more intelligent humans, right? I mean, you wouldn't expect a 15 year old crack addict to be able to protect herself from a bear attack, would you? She needs to be able to procreate in order to protect her "sub-species," because let's face it, she isn't going to last too long in the wild. So she'll probably end up having 6-8 children to protect her lineage. Whereas someone with more intelligence would be more likely to figure out a way to survive a bear attack (or even defeat the bear), hence ensuring a longer lifespan, and reducing the need for multiple offspring to perpetuate their sub-species.

You see where I'm going with this. Clearly, since Infertiles are the least likely to be able to procreate with ease, it follows that there must be less need for us to procreate, meaning we are at the very, very top of the food chain and therefore (as we already knew) on the highest end of the intelligence scale.

So there you go. While it totally sucks that we have a harder time procreating, at least we know we're more likely to survive a bear attack.

And to any Fertile readers out there, I mean no disrespect to you! Since you are obviously as high on the intelligence scale as us Infertiles (you hang out with the likes of me, after all), I can only conclude that you're some kind of freak of nature for being able to procreate, when the laws of nature clearly dictate that you should be infertile too! ;)

Disclaimer: This post was in no way meant to be serious, so please don't take offense and start arguing with my indisputable facts. Let us poor barren bitches have our fun where we can get it.