Nature’s parents do not view their children through a dark, crazed veil of dry and thirsty deprivation nor a floral, milky gleem of vain and pathetic estimation, as humans do, say Planetmates.
Planetmates Release The Twenty-Fourth Prasad
Care-giving was tainted and minimal, and it fostered traits reflective of the emotional deprivations of the adults.
Arctic Grey Wolf is First Consciousness at The Twenty-Fourth Prasad.
However confused the grown Humans, over time they came to understand that for their own survival there is benefit to the investment in these dying, desperate prematures.
The Twenty-Fourth Prasad – Children As Investments
So all care-giving was tainted with this early deprivation and self-centeredness of the care-givers and so, while it did not serve the newborns needs for perfect nurturing, it allowed for some, at least, minimal nurturing for survival. 
Meanwhile, it acted on the newborns so that such traits that were even dimly reflective of the satisfaction of the fully growns’ own early deprivations were selected for in newborns. This period of ambivalence over newborns and what to do with them characterized your species for a very long period, relatively, and your species remained a small and insignificant part of all Earth planetmates because of this. 
This only began to change when you began your sedentary-accumulative-conforming ways. So, however confused the grown Humans, over time they came to understand—and it’s to be noted that in some types of cultures it took a great deal of time to get to this understanding—that there is benefit to the investment in these dying, desperate prematures, for their survival. (to be continued)
Paraphrase/ Elaboration “The Twenty-Fourth Prasad” — Ambivalence Regarding Children — by SillyMickel Adzema
Your children were hurt by this early inattentiveness to their needs. All parenting was suffused with the emotional deprivation and resulting twisted consciousness of your fully growns. However far from ideal nurturing and what is possible in Nature, such care-giving was sufficient, barely, for species survival.
But such a corruption of nurturing continued to infuse and mold the personalities of your children in unnatural ways. More and more, it pushed toward characteristics that mirrored the darker impulses of your adults; it manifested the repressed undersides of fully growns, which was comprised of early unmet needs and corrupted desires.
So there was ambivalence in the desire for children. 
Your species swayed back and forth about what to do with them — between the poles of infanticide and abandonment on one side and acceptance and nurture on the other—for the longest period of your fully human existence. It follows that humans did not 
thrive during this period. 
You survived, barely; but your numbers were not large compared to other species, and your species and its strange proclivities did not matter much in the grand scheme of things. You were no great harm and caused no widespread suffering to the many outside of yourselves.
But as your species turned its back on its nomadic roots and, blinded by an unnatural fever, pursued a circumscribed and strenuous sedentary lifeway, this stasis in your numbers began to change. You began to see some benefit in having offspring. You perceived survival advantages in family status and larger broods of children.
Of course, for most of this time the greater majority of you still did not come to the appreciation of the family burden, still there was ever-growing understanding of such as worthy of investment. 
And this changing view correlated predominantly with sedentary lifestyles and accumulating/ conforming ways.
To clarify, your crazed non-sedentary forebears still were ambivalent about children 
and perceived families as a burden in relation to their overblown perception of the struggle to survive. Alongside this, in the world of Nature, there was neither a disinclination for offspring nor an overinvestment in them. 
Bonding and affection with Nature’s young rose from the correct, biologically constituted, appreciation of the offspring, and this more individually so. Nature’s parents do not view their children through a dark, crazed veil of dry and thirsty deprivation nor a 
floral, milky gleem of vain and pathetic estimation. 
In contrast to both of these, agrarian anchors and accumulating, conniving modes fostered appreciation of increases of population, 
specifically, families, as beneficial in the struggle for survival. It follows that attention and energy would be put into these extra beings, seen increasingly as resources in the struggle against the monstrously over-apprehended fear of death.
The upshot is that in your ever-increasing sedentary numbers, children were considered advantageous against that imagined encroaching darkness you carried. So the life of your otherwise doomed, helpless newborns was valued more often than not. Your desperate, suffering half-borns would increase your numbers as a defense against your personal demise.
Continue with The Great Reveal, Chapter Thirty-Three: The Twenty-Fifth Prasad. The Family Fortress
Return to The Great Reveal, Chapter Thirty-One: The Twenty-Third Prasad. The “Love” Contract, Parental Care?
Invite you to join me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/sillymickel
friend me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sillymickel
Apocalypse - NO! 
Interesting. Where to begin? Surely not here. i feeel like i came in after the intermission, and am unfamiliar with everything that was explained during the first at. i need a libretto, a scorecard, a genealogical chart, and especially a timeline. Where in your writings can i go for the introduction? This piece is not user-friendly, does not explain its terms, and probably has stimulating and interesting things to say, but it starts in jargon and code, leaving me a bit unsure just what the devil you are talking about. Who are the Planetmates? i know what prasad is to a Hindu, but what is it to you? i suspect the meaning you are assigning to the word prasad is already adequately covered, and more clearly, by the word darshan, though perhaps that is not what you meant after all. Where do you tell us what you do mean? When exactly in human history did each of the changes you describe occur? “Eventually, early humans saw…” Okay, when did we see that? Why eventually? What did we see before then? What guesses are you making about human life before records? About the nature of the human animal? And what does all this have to do with a perinatal perspective?
Sure is fun to speculate. We have so little data about how early humans saw each other and saw their sensual immersion in the interconnected natural world. i’m fond of the views which most question their own cultural background and biases, some of which point to sustainable ways for humans to be, even from this difficult juncture on out.
Has anybody here read the Spell of the Sensuous by David Abram? Or anything by Paul Shepard?
Where to begin when talking about early humans? Emergence of genus homo 3 million years ago? The most recent ideas about the most recent speciation? The genetically, culturally, and biologically recent emergence of sedentary settlements importing crops from surrounding lands? Our own childhoods?
Is it reasonable to begin among the humans who live the most like early humans? Jean Liedloff did, stumbling by accident upon startlingly hopeful and effective patterns of nurturance, and i love what she has to say: http://www.continuum-concept.org/cc_defined.html Of course, the primitive humans we are all descended from are not the same as the present-day primitive humans we have not yet managed to wipe out, and we must compare and extrapolate carefully; and critically. Still, there is value in the exercise, and the directions it points is away from the supposed superiority of complex industrialized childrearers.
If primitive humans live very differently than we do, it stands to reason that their consciousness is profoundly different than ours, perhaps so much so that we have a very great deal of difficulty understanding them or us: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150666037105825 . “The outstanding social condition is a sociosensual type of infant and child nurture that spawns an intuitive group rapport and unites people without need for formal rules. The outstanding psychological condition is heart-felt rapprochement based on integrated trust. This provides remarkable efficiency in securing needs and responding to nature’s challenges while dispensing ongoing delight with people and surroundings.1 The outstanding economic condition is the absence of private property, which allows constant cooperative usage of the implements and materials of life for collective benefit. The human ecology engendered by the interaction of these outstanding conditions makes the forcing of others (including children) to one’s will a disruptive and unwholesome practice. It was not seen. ” – Sorenson (1997), in Tribal Epistemologies: Essays in the Philosophy of Anthropology, Helmut Wautischer, ed.
When did caretaking become tainted and minimal? And what caused that change? The history of an individual childhood is culture-bound, and its effects are revealed in psychoanalysis. The history of a culture’s childrearing techniques is just as culture-bound, and their effects are revealed in what each generation does, that is, revealed in history itself (or perhaps never revealed at all). The history of childhood is fascinating, and few approach it more directly than psychohistorians, yet it is notable that their data and speculations apply only to civilized peoples, and only empire-based ones at that, and do not even include the Romans and Greeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistoric
i am very open to the idea that how we give birth and raise our children, particularly while toddlers, has a profound effect on the people they become and the culture that such people recreate, modify, and transmit. i am very suspicious of any ideas that defend the culture they were born in while denigrating other cultures. Empire has a vested interest in dissing primitive peoples. Ideas of progressive improvement, especially starting from assumptions of primitive fear, misery, desperation, or difficulty surviving, are particularly suspect for me, and should be for each of you. Primitive peoples have less stress than moderns, live less hurried lives, experience fear less often, work less often and make art more often, and have notably fewer stress-based illnesses. As Liedloff and Sorenson and others have found, their level of cooperation and empathy is often much higher, not lower. So why should we believe any theories that posit a fearful selfish beginning for humans and childrearing?
I so agree. Thanks for a rich and thoughtful comment, with valuable links.