I looked at my 1984 "The New Our Bodies, Ourselves" by the Boston Women's Health Book Collective and it puts the danger/risk to rest in my mind although their are unusal circumstances, of course. Plus the old method of lying flat on a surface is the worst way to deliver- it is just a convenience for the doctor. A doctor can incise the opening and stitch you up again or you can have a Caesarian delivery. I'd worry more about the effect of drugs of the baby's brain.
On Jul 21, 10:26�am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > Regardless of how pliable the cranium is, it can only take so much > pressure before the brain starts being compressed, and that is always > a danger to the child. > > On Jul 21, 2:10�pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yes- it is the fontanel. Perhaps it allows the fetal skull to survive > > the birth canal by squeezing the skull up a bit.// And yes- newborns > > are completely dependent on adult care. But so are young children and > > even later as they venture forth. Maybe by their mid-20's children are > > starting to settle down and use their heads. But I wonder if parental > > concern ever vanishes? What can you do about it? Be quiet or try to > > give good advice and pray for their safety, health and happiness. > > > On Jul 21, 7:26 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think I remember my mother pointing out a "soft spot" on the head of > > > a newborn. I think the plates can deform during birth and it isn't > > > till after that they "solid up". > > > > One thing for sure. A newborn stands no chance alone. > > > > On Jul 20, 7:22 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The birth canal can handle 14 pound infants whose bones are still soft > > > > therefore I disagree with you. > > > > > On Jul 20, 1:42 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > Yes, 1,400 cubic centimetres is the average volume a fully adult human > > > > > brain. I should have made this distinction. > > > > > > However, human beings have larger brains than their ancestors did at > > > > > all stages in life. So which an infant's brain isn't quite 1,400 cubic > > > > > centimetres, it is still a hell of a lot larger than those of our > > > > > ancestors at the time of birth. > > > > > > The baby's head is usually the widest part of its body at the time of > > > > > birth. You are right to propose that the shoulders would also cause > > > > > considerable difficulties, but it may be interesting to note that one > > > > > of the physiological changes that would be necessary to accommodate a > > > > > larger head, heavier head (which is necessary to accommodate a larger, > > > > > heavier brain), is wider shoulders. > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Garrie > > > > > On Jul 20, 5:57 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Garrie - again, many thanks for your thoughtful, thorough reply and > > > > > > observations. > > > > > > I think the only one I would question is the brain size - I > > > > > > believe you are citing the size of the adult brain. An infant's > > > > > > brain > > > > > > size is much smaller. So delivery of the infant at birth might not > > > > > > be > > > > > > nearly the problem you think. Also, at birth is the head the largest > > > > > > object, or is it the shoulders or the hips? > > > > > > You are quite right about natural selection preferring nothing - > > > > > > it has no preference. It just describes the result of a natural > > > > > > process, as you point out. Jim > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 12:52 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Jim, > > > > > > > > In evolutionary terms, the most important goal is to hand down > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > genes. The prerequisites to this goal are reproduction and > > > > > > > survival. > > > > > > > Therefore, there is NOTHING more important than survival in > > > > > > > evolutionary terms. > > > > > > > > So no, I wouldn't say that sleep serves a purpose more important > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > survival. I would say that sleep serves the purpose of survival, > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > fact. > > > > > > > > You are entirely right that sleep makes the sleeper vulnerable to > > > > > > > prey > > > > > > > that is not asleep. But natural selection does not know this. > > > > > > > > Many people see evolution and natural selection as independent > > > > > > > conscious agents who constantly and actively refine the organism > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > make it better and better at surviving. This just isn't the case. > > > > > > > Natural selection and evolution aren't 'aware' of anything. They > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > not know that sleeps makes up vulnerable. I daresay that if > > > > > > > evolution > > > > > > > and natural selection were conscious creative agents, then sleep > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > have been abolished long ago. > > > > > > > > It hasn't though. Why? This is your question, I believe. Why > > > > > > > haven't > > > > > > > we evolved to not require sleep, when in fact, it is a danger to > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > organism to be a sleep. > > > > > > > > Well first of all, let me say that sleep is not the only > > > > > > > phenomenon of > > > > > > > living creatures which would seem to be a disadvantage to > > > > > > > individual > > > > > > > survival. Let me introduce to you a few of them within our own > > > > > > > species: > > > > > > > > 1) The human brain. > > > > > > > > Around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, our ancestors had brains with a > > > > > > > volume of only 400 cubic centimetres. Around that period, it > > > > > > > bloomed > > > > > > > to about 650 cubic centimetres. Around 500,000 years ago, it > > > > > > > jumped to > > > > > > > 1,200 cubic centimetres. And then around 150,000 to 200,000 years > > > > > > > ago, > > > > > > > when the first 'homo sapiens' walked the plains of africa, it > > > > > > > jumped > > > > > > > to its current volume of around 1,400 cubic centimetres. > > > > > > > > But the problems that came from the increase in the volume of the > > > > > > > brain were quite substantial. For starts, millions upon millions > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > women have died in the last 200,000 years because their pelvises > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > been unable to pass the head of a baby needed to house this > > > > > > > massive > > > > > > > organ. Quite a lot of the time, the baby perished too. > > > > > > > > Not only that, but the brain takes up one fifth of the entire > > > > > > > human > > > > > > > energy reserve. So 200,000 years ago, our ancestors found > > > > > > > themselves > > > > > > > having to hunt and eat a lot more food than they had to when their > > > > > > > brains were only 400 cubic centimetres. > > > > > > > > Our heads are now so heavy that the risk of a human suffering > > > > > > > from a > > > > > > > broken neck is massive compared to that of our chimpanzee cousins. > > > > > > > > 2) Walking on 2 legs. > > > > > > > > Humans still haven't adapted to walking to 2 legs as fully as they > > > > > > > could be. Walking on two legs is a relatively recent practice > > > > > > > among > > > > > > > the species, and as such, we haven't quite had the chance to > > > > > > > assimilate to it. The statistics for the number of humans with > > > > > > > chronic > > > > > > > back problems are enough to convey this, and almost every single > > > > > > > human > > > > > > > will have personal experience of it at one point in their lives. > > > > > > > Going > > > > > > > back 200,000 years, the notion of back trouble was even more > > > > > > > daunting > > > > > > > than it is today. For us it means annoyance when rising from our > > > > > > > chairs, but for our ancestors it was the difference between > > > > > > > escaping > > > > > > > predators and being gored to death. It was the difference between > > > > > > > catching the extra prey necessary to provide the energy that our > > > > > > > brains required and lying on the african plains, dying from > > > > > > > starvation. It was the difference between between being sexually > > > > > > > attractive and sexually selected, and being cast aside to die > > > > > > > without > > > > > > > ever passing on their genetic codes. > > > > > > > > So why oh why has natural selection not ridded us of these > > > > > > > burdens? > > > > > > > > Well, because Natural Selection really doesn't care. Natural > > > > > > > selection > > > > > > > is indifferent to what makes us vulnerable. Natural selection has > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > inclination to remove the characteristics which cause us great > > > > > > > pain > > > > > > > and discomfort. Natural selection doesn't care if we live or die. > > > > > > > Because natural selection isn't capable of caring, or thinking, or > > > > > > > realising what characteristics are beneficial, and which are > > > > > > > burdensome. > > > > > > > > The reason we continue to sleep, walk on 2 legs, and have massive > > > > > > > brains is the NET effect they have on us, as a species, is a > > > > > > > beneficial one. So although, if you look at sleep from one angle, > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > seems to be a great disadvantage, if you look at it from another > > > > > > > angle, you see that the benefits we gain from it far outweigh the > > > > > > > disadvantages. > > > > > > > > Afterall, sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for > > > > > > > 1 > > > > > > > third of our lives, but it keeps us fresh and awake and able to > > > > > > > escape > > > > > > > predators and catch prey for 2 thirds of our lives. If we never > > > > > > > slept, > > > > > > > the nature of our physiology would make us vulnerable for 100% of > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > lives (and short lives they would be!). > > > > > > > > In conclusion: > > > > > > > > Yes, many organisms have died from being asleep at the wrong time, > > > > > > > having massive brains, and attempting to walk on two legs. But > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > more organisms have USED their brains to aid their survival, have > > > > > > > USED > > > > > > > their walking habits to benefit their survival, and used a good > > > > > > > night's rest to make them must more 'fit' for an overwhelming > > > > > > > majority > > > > > > > of their lives. > > > > > > > > On the whole, these characteristics have been beneficial enough to > > > > > > > allow the majority of the organisms that have these > > > > > > > characteristics to > > > > > > > survive, reproduce, and hand those characteristics down to their > > > > > > > offspring. And the humans who refused to walk on two feet, didn't > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > as big brains, or didn't get enough sleep perished in the > > > > > > > competition > > > > > > > of their smarter, faster, and more energised rival humans. > > > > > > > > Natural selection doesn't refine us until we are perfect. It just > > > > > > > gets > > > > > > > rid of the specimens whose genes do not allow them to survive to > > > > > > > pass > > > > > > > them on. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Garrie > > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 7:51 pm, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Garrie - on further > > ... > > read more �- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
