Just because people can physically, biologically have children does not automatically imply that they can - or should - be the only ones to raise the children. Children used to be a community effort; the US strayed from this a long time ago. Of course it would be much harder to raise a kid at 22 (or 16, or) than 40!

▲

deepsun 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yet our physiology is tuned to become parents at 16 rather than 40.

I think nature doesn't care whether it's easier or better or whatever. It only cares for _more_ children to survive until their own time to have children.

	▲	genewitch 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		you just restated what i said. perhaps i could have been more clear. by whatever mechanism, humans can breed at a much younger age than they can feasibly take care of their offspring. Up until maybe 75-100 years ago, "it takes a village" wasn't just a trite canard, it was actually how you raised children. I just finished watching a youtuber explain that raising children after having had to move away from your extended family because of affordability is suck and "maybe that's why young people are waiting to have kids, because there's no village anymore."