>>13812814So many of your concerns are outdated. We currently have abundant food resources, and it isn't the energy concern of the modern era. Saving some calories from a small male isn't significant.
While some activities can generally be done as a group with little loss, things like attention and personalized education are always limited. 4 different children who may want to do 4 different things is difficult. You also completely skip trying to pay 4 college tuitions simultaneously.
You also lose a lot of advantage of breeding litters if you only do it once. Having a woman highly specialize to breeding a litter and only doing it once is wasteful. Other animals do it multiple times and to survive predation, and even that changes based on environment. The rabbits where I live are generally having only 1-2 kittens per pregnancy, because the predation level is low. The woman's body only has so much capacity, and we know that twins/triplets suffer for competing developmental resources compared to a single child.
Your fantasy works in other worlds, where warfare still has high casualty rates, rather than a world where war is trending to expensive robots blowing each other up with little loss of human life. Most rational people estimate the Earth is reaching carrying capacity for the human population, anyhow, and you are trying to modify humans to being able to have 30-40 children (I was going to say 12-20, but our current physiology has allowed for that. Interesting fact, the record number for children birthed was 69, through 27 pregnancies, in the 18th century).
We are clearly in a world where people should be giving birth to replacement levels of people and focusing on raising them well. None of your cost/benefit analysis works out in the modern world.
