The Parable of the Long Spoons is an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

CON attempts to bring up a lot of practical criticisms of unrestricted polyamory and polygamy. I didn't quite expect such a serious debate over a topic I know to be impractical for different reasons, but I will address them nevertheless.RebuttalR4) CON: "A lot of women don't want to become mothers...it is not sexual behavior that is limiting the birthrate." I agree, especially given the amount of sexual liberation in our society...we're already intimate with far more people than would be proper in an actual monogamous and monandrous society. So, if it's not sex limiting procreation, maybe, just maybe, the reason deals with scarcity - the costs of raising children in developed nations is astronomical - costs are high because resources are scarce. Page 23 of this report (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov...) shows that raising a kid in 2011 is projected to cost about $234,900 (not including college, which can easily double or even triple the cost); out of this number, more than 3/4 the expenses can be handled with greater efficiency via economies of scale (carpooling for transportation, shared housing, "cooking for 40", more parents precluding the need for daycare).CON is attempting to argue that the parable isn't logically sound (soundness vs validity - http://www.iep.utm.edu...). I fully agree, but this debate isn't about the soundness of the parable...it is about the validity of the parable. Is this parable's logic internally consistent? If so, then the parable advocates for polyamory and polygamy, no matter how unsound the parable may be. The operating premise of this parable is that scarcity is not an issue, as the table is plentiful. That certainly isn't realistic, but if it were, then the orgies will commence! Regardless, I've demonstrated how polyamory and polygamy can lead to greater efficiencies, which would lend to soundness as well as validity of the parable. I need only prove validity, i.e. issues that do not stem from scarcity. R5) CON: "Pro concedes that polygamy and polyamory will not make fathers more responsible for their offspring." I make no such concession. My points were that even if this were true, or better yet, even if it made them less responsible, polyamory and polygamy would still lead to better child-rearing due to more mothers giving more parenting.There's little reason to think CON is correct. If on average a father devoted only 10% of his time to child-rearing and this didn't change with polygamy and polyandry, economies of scale would still mean that he'd do more parenting overall and hence be "more responsible for their offspring."R6) CON: "Cooking dinner for ten families at once would be economically more efficient than each individual cooking for her own family. This has nothing to do with polyandry, of course." Why wouldn't it have anything to do with polyandry? Wouldn't you be far more inclined to cook dinner for someone you had an intimate relationship with? Or 39 other someones? R7) CON: "If a father has ten children with ten different women, he needs to split his time among ten different households, and the travel time alone will make this inefficient." Shared housing would ameliorate this concern. You already share a house with your spouse and children, so if you had 20 other spouses with 100 children that are biologically related in one way or another, you'd simply live in a much bigger house.R8) CON: "If a father is only at a child's house every second Wednesday, for example, he would miss all the important things in that child's life." False! He'd catch all the important things that occurred every second Wednesday! Then father #2 would catch all the second Thursdays, father #3 etc...little Johnny would have a parent at every soccer game, even if it was a different parent at each one!=)R9) CON: "We live in an age where paternity can be easily established. People know who their parents are. Children don't have many, many parents."CON fails to account for half-brothers and half-sisters, in which case there would be many step-fathers and step-mothers. VERY MANY.R10) CON: "Fifty acquaintances do not make up for one or two excellent and close friends. It's the quality of the relationships that is important, not the quantity."By this logic, it's not the quantity of time that's important, but the quality of time that is important. Given the amount of sharing inherent in the logic of this parable, distrust would largely be eliminated, thus quality of relationships would skyrocket even with less time spent on each one. ConclusionI am aware there are some valid reasons why this parable is so compelling. Sharing and increase intimacy will indeed lead to better and more caring relationships which directly lends to better child-rearing, and this is independent from issues of scarcity. Even some of the issues pertaining to scarcity of resources can be ameliorated through this parable. I have addressed all of CON's concerns, so I have upheld burden.