Slashdot Mirror
Cesarean Births Could Be Affecting Human Evolution, Study Says (bbc.com)
CanadianRealist writes: Larger babies delivered by cesarean section may be affecting human evolution. Researchers estimate cases where the baby cannot fit down the birth canal have increased from 30 in 1,000 in the 1960s to 36 in 1,000 births today, [according to estimates from researchers at the University of Vienna in Austria.] Science Alert reports: "In the past, larger babies and mothers with narrow pelvis sizes might both have died in labour. Thanks to C-sections, that's now a lot less likely, but it also means that those 'at risk' genes from mothers with narrow pelvises are being carried into future generations. More detailed studies would be required to actually confirm the link between C-sections and evolution, as all we have now is a hypothesis based on the birth data." Agreed, more studies required part. Cesareans may simply be becoming more common with "too large" defined as cesarean seems like a better idea. It's reasonable to pose the question based simply on an understanding of evolution. Like it's reasonable to conjecture that length of human pregnancy is a compromise between further development in utero, and chance of mother and baby surviving the delivery.
Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this. The next phase is to have babies so big that the mother needs to step to a parallel world to give birth.
Well 0.36/0.30 = 20% growth and it's only been ~2 generations, if you consider that most of the 3% in one generation will have kids with the other 97% in the next generation it seems unlikely to happen this fast. It's probable that it's more routine and we're more cautious today, so borderline cases get the surgery now where they wouldn't in the past.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Human evolution is by definition the development of home sapiens sapiens under external influences. The binary outcome being who succeeds in procreating and who doesn't.
So, yes, cesareans will have an influence.
Common misconceptions:
-- the pressure is to procreate, not survive. Individual survival is only in interesting in evolutionary terms when it affects (a) the ability to procreate repeatedly, and (b) the survival of the offspring until they in turn can procreate.
-- one of the major pressures is not strictly "fitness" in any conventional sense of the word, but that of sexual selection. I.e., as an individual you will be more motivated to procreate in cooperation with a mate you consider to be attractive (and not a mate who is actually "fit").
-- the above having being said, the cultural aspects are not to be underestimated. The fact that we a a species have minds that are capable of recognizing the mechanism of natural selection has an impact on natural selection. For example, we can often afford to display such things as kindness or compassion, without condemning ourselves or our clan to death (and thus, infinitely worse, absence of progeny). We also ought to be able to survive exceptionally hard winters, perhaps even several in a row.
Are there alternate explanations that also fit the trend? Many mothers are more careful about their health habits during pregnancy now than in the past, in large part due to a better understanding of what is helpful and harmful to the unborn child. Access to better prenatal care also certainly has improved the health of unborn children. Unhealthy babies often are smaller than healthy babies, and if there are fewer unhealthy babies now, then it follows that the average weight would increase. Although not healthy, there has also been a trend toward higher obesity rates, especially in some developed countries. Obese mothers sometimes give birth to very overweight babies, which is unhealthy for the child. An upward trend in obesity should lead to an upward trend in heavy babies, all else equal. It seems like these hypotheses could also explain the observed trends.
Babies have been getting bigger for a long time.
This is well documented in medical literature:
- "These findings suggest that US and Canadian babies are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "We conclude that Canadian infants are getting bigger" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
- "Results presented in this study demonstrate that even when migratory effects are eliminated, a secular increase in birth weight is observed" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
foo mane padme hum
Newborns are so selfish that they don't have the *courtesy* to be born in business hours. Inconsiderate little brats.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Cesarean Births, Insulin and condoms may be affecting evolution...news at 11.
I've been hearing people casually bring this up at parties as an example of the medical worlds effect on human evolution, so it's a little surprising to see that this could be just now making its way into actual science. I'm not going to say that it shouldn't be news if that is the case that this speculation just now made its way into academic circles, but we all know that some births via c section would have otherwise risked complications, and we all already know that babies who die before they grow up can't have children, so, again, it might be news, but feels a little out of place all the same.
We have babies that would not have been born before. Will infertility be hereditary in the future?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
A) which babies from where are they measuring ?
B) hospitals/doctors have a vested interest in performing more surgical births,they get paid more.
C) fashion,the too posh to push brigade,too rich to suffer any pain/discomfort.
D) polluted environments,leading to bigger babies.
E) better nutrition,fitter mothers..
Etc etc etc etc..
When they get reliable figures showing that it's happening in every country in the world and at all class levels then I might believe it,until then,there are so many other variables that could explain it that it's pointless.
where did they come from? cease fire stand down... in the moms we trust.. truth+mercy=justice
"Evolving". Hah. Humans are effectively replicating but I would say that that process is quite far from evolving at this point in time.
Previous generations and marriages gave birth to a more traditional (old-fashioned?) household, where the father was the only provider, and the mother stayed home to raise children, starting at a young age (late teens/early 20s). Compare and contrast this to what we see today as more of the average, where both adults perhaps go to school, start careers, spend time traveling the world, and then start considering marriage and a family in their late 20's/early 30's.
And this is not meant to sound mean or degrading, but we humans don't exactly shrink in size as we get older, thus making pregnancy and childbirth that much harder on a human body that may be leaning more towards the overweight or obese range. Perhaps mentally, the ideal age to become a parent is mid-30s due to maturity/wisdom/financial status/etc, but from a purely physical standpoint, childbirth is likely ideal at a much younger age, which a younger body may provide a bit more flexibility when it comes to childbirth.
Correlation is never. Ever. Not even once. Causation. The baby Jesus is making it so that more women with narrow hips are born. It is the only explanation that makes sense.
If women would be unable to get bigger children, these children would not end up in the gene pool. With Cesarean births, they can and they do.
It's not evolution. Unless you consider operating theatres to be symbiotic. Take the surgery out, would the resulting deaths be considered devolution?
Why UNIX?
Some breeds of dogs, bulldogs maybe?, HAVE to be born via C-section. The puppies can no longer fit the natural way.
Medical liability cases are increasing around the world, and the cost of insurance is driving many people from the profession. (See articles)
My wife wanted to give birth at home, it was both very difficult to organise and extremely costly.
All her friends said she was mad; plan the date with your Dr. for a C-section, fast, painless and no stress waiting for contractions to start.
It's as much a matter of convenience for both sides as a question of baby size IMHO.
http://www.medscape.com/viewar...
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
TRUMP 2016!!!
I don't think this is what he meant by "grab them by the pussy"
Just another day in Paradise
We have been de-evolving for a long time now. Lots and lots of "defective" people are living to reproduce who would have died without medical science (I am one of them). This ends up making the species genetically more poor each time.
Anything that affects mate selection affects evolution... Mundane things such as wearing makup and shaving body hair are probably affecting evolution.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
This study appears to have multiple flaws: 1) A statistical increase in Caesareans does not mean a statistical narrowing of the pelvis. There is not a causal relationship. This is like suggesting that because relatively fewer people are having their wisdom teeth extracted today, our mouths must be getting bigger. 2) Even with a correlation between pelvis width and Caesareans, it does not mean those children or mothers would have died in non-surgical child birth. This is creating a binary relationship out of a correlation - or in other terms assuming the absence of a negative is a positive. Other factors: - The general guideline today (as I understand it) is that if you have had a Caesarean in the past it is safer to have Caesareans for future babies - this alone might account for the statistical increase. - Larger babies can be attributed to better prenatal health and nutrition. - The increase in Caesareans can be attributed to more women giving birth in a hospital setting where Caesarean is an available and safe option.
There's no evidence. This is click-bait bullshit.
Agreed, more studies required part.
GENIUS
You fellow humans can't deny. . .
Wait. . . is it "pelves"?
I hope Trump gets rid of vaccinations while he's in office. These diseases are here to help rid our gene pool of bad genes, yet we keep trying to save those less fit. It only hurts our species in the long run!
We need NATURAL selection.
Jenny McCarthy is right -- even if for the wrong reasons.
Good deal. At the next Ebola outbreak, hop on a jet over to that location and help bury the bodies, but you can't wear any protective gear. If you have 'superior' genes, you should be fine, right?
Jerkwad...
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
splice the DNA with a zip lock bag for women ;)
Nothing worse than seeing pussy hanging out like that. Republicans can and will fix this, by hook or by crook.
...abortion could be affecting human evolution, too...
The question is why are babies getting bigger. Are they bigger because they are getting better nutrition and developing a bit more before birth? Or are they getting fatter like the adults, who are increasingly overweight and obese?
Death is no longer acceptable outcome of life. We all want to live forever. Another effect of the increasing cesareans: the bacterial transfer from the birth canal is no longer as common. The number of allergies are abound to increase.
Maybe your genes could've been tested better before you reached reproductive age.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I think the claim is that as the species becomes overspecialized toward reliance on medical technology, it faces a higher rate of extinction should a global catastrophe take medical technology away.
With the progress of modern science and medicine, Darwin's laws do not apply to humans as much anymore ... instead, health issues that would have kept humans unfit for life from procreating are still strong ... as is - to a certain degree - heretic stupidity not ruling out people suffering from it from adding to the gene pool (well, some do manage to earn a Darwin award by removing themselves). As a result, human genes most likely will get worse rather quickly ... in contrast, positive alterations will have less impact on the probability of the human surviving to adulthood, so good traits will not lead to a notably better procreation ... ...
Add to that that the number of children in better educated (some/many of which with genetically higher IQ capability) families tends to be lower than in many lower-class, less educated families, this might lead to the human race getting not only sicker, but also stupider
Good thing I'm out of here in some 30-40 years (hopefully that long ;) ) ... seeing as to how stupid humanity has already gotten (Proof in point: U.S.' president elect.. not only is he stupid, the large number of voters must be, too ...)
TRUMP 2016!!!
I don't think this is what he meant by "grab them by the pussy"
Not that I'm supporting Trump (he's more evil than Cthulhu, almost as bad as Hillary), but have you noticed how those 30ish women who accused him of sexual assault all went silent the moment the election was over? Shouldn't they be trying to bring him to justice? Maybe, just maybe, it was all staged false accusations as certain people like this kind of methods? See Assange, or what esr was tipped about.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Isolate the genes causing problems in delivery and repair them. Larger humans is a good thing, it indicates greater development and will likely be key to our self-direct evolution as masters of both Earth and the galaxy.
My wife's OB doesn't do elective C-sections. BUT... following her demands, they kept pumping meds in through the epidural until pushing wasn't working anymore. Then.... C-section.
As the risk has gone down more mothers and doctors are going to Casarean earlier. These days Casarean births and less expensive and easier on both the mother and doctor. Wham, bam, here's your baby ma'am.
since evolution at that scale is hard to predict. There are other factors at play (e.g. how many children you have, your level of intelligence and other abilities, whether you're children will have the same troubles you have, etc, etc).
Idiocracy was funny and all, but it's not science. And speaking of science, the human body is a machine, and we're capable of fully understanding it if we try. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine, but soon. Now, if we can just get the damn anti-science folks clamped down before they send us into another dark age...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Though I'm not saying we couldn't lose all tech. There's a sizable portion of the population that would like to see that happen since science conflicts with their world view (in more ways than one). I think as long as we keep those people in check we'll be fine though.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It may be a fascinating field of study, but there are no practical conclusions to make.
What are you going to do — ban the C-sections and have these additional 6+ per mille of children die during birth (possibly taking moms with them)?
For better or worse, humans can't be treated like poodles, where those deviating from the set standards are neutered...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Considering the fact that an overwhelming number of C-Sections are medically unnecessary, this hypothesis seems highly speculative, at best.
There are some babies that would be too big for the birth canal and die, yes. But that's actually pretty rare. More often, doctors intervene far too early in labor and end up causing more problems with those interventions (head forceps are a good example of this from history, c-sections are a good example of what happens now). This is why countries that are more progressive in this area have pregnant women work with a midwife who brings in the doctor only when needed.
There are a lot of issues with the way c-sections are handled now, so trying to draw any conclusion other than we have a lot of unnecessary surgery going on is pretty dicey and really just irresponsible.
Authorized by whom, fool? Trump's not in office yet. You're guessing that Obama made the call on behalf of his good buddy Trump?
Please, elaborate — how is it a "good thing"? I'll admit, that it is nicer to be relatively tall — taller (Napoleon once said: longer) than others. But why is it desirable for humanity to raise the average height?
Are giraffes "greater developed" than humans or even gazelles?
The key to both will be intelligence and technology. A larger personal body-size is more likely do be an impediment than advantage — you'll need bigger spaceships carrying more supplies. And to what end? To be able to take on some alien savage in hand-to-hand combat — instead of using a weapon?
The flea-bitten bastards of Pizarro conquered the Inca not because they were bigger — he was, but his crew weren't. Cortes was, apparently, shorter than Montesuma as well. But the invaders had firearms...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Like autism and peanut allergies. People with those genetic markers wouldnt have reproduced in the past, because they wouldnt have survived childhood, but not any more. Should be interesting to see what happens.
Man has discovered (created?) a new tool - and humans are taking advantage of it. Discovery or creation of tools have aligned with rapid growth of humans before.
Fire, Hammers, the Wheel, Machines, Beer, now this.
Therefore it stands to reason that bigger children will emerge through the use of this tool.
See ... what esr was tipped about.
What was esr tipped about?
Make pelvises yuuge again!
nt
"It's as much a matter of convenience " DING DING DING!!! We have a winner here. It is a matter of convenience for the Drs... check the stats - most C-sections happen just before dinner and later in the evening, through to the early morning... why have crappy hospital food when I can slice 'er open and be home for dinner... My FIL (a Physician) tells us of a Dr he dealt with that scheduled C-Sections for all his patients just before he went on vacation - that way HE could get the billing...
There is a huge list of genetic diseases and defects that we are allowing to propagate down the gene pool. In fact, there have been a few studies that have shown that the genetic strength of the human race is weakening, and at a fairly quick pace.
Cancer, in particular, is something that we are very bad about allowing to die out. In fact, when a man gets cancer, the first thing they do before beginning treatment is bank his sperm. WHY!?! Why the hell would we want to give a guarantee that his defective DNA will propagate?
We need a law that prohibits people with genetic diseases from reproducing.
Or is it only a perversion of nature when women make an elective medical choice?
You're too stupid to consider the possibility that either the cow or your body metabolizes these hormones that are mythically added to cows. Let met give you a fucking hint. It's milk. it makes babies grow. Oh wait, yeah, studies show that the levels of IGF, from a population of dairy cows actually given rGBF, in cow milk are lower than in human milk.
In other words, you're a fucking idiot and spewing bullshit from mother earth news instead of reading studies from reputable journals.
Any medical care for people of child rearing age changes the evolutionary path. That kid that was saved by having his appendix removed at the age of 8 probably had a genetic flaw that allowed a weak appendix. That high school football player with a broken hip either did not have enough sense of self preservation or perhaps weak hip joints and those tendencies can be passed on in the gene pool. As simply stated almost any medical procedure, or even sanitation and inoculation all have an effect of weakening the species by allowing those with negative tendencies to survive.
This isn't a very good study. Here is a break down of some of the issues:
http://gizmodo.com/wait-are-c-sections-really-altering-the-course-of-evol-1789727767
Agreed, and I didn't vote for him either. But the allegations never played will with me. There was no evidence, and why would it all suddenly come up a month before the election? This was a clear smear attempt.
Just another day in Paradise
This article reminds me that Evolution is correctly defined as (a subset of) the changes that happen in the world over which we have no control or agency. We do not cause evolution. Evolution causes us. A few caesarians are about as significant as a few proto-giraffes reaching for some tempting leaves.
Humans have agency. We DO things. Evolution has no agency. It does not DO anything. It is important to distinguish conceptually the difference between what we DO, and those things which merely "happen", like long giraffe necks and human female pelvic bone opening areas. We may, by our behavior in our tiny temporal existence, influence (in a minuscule and insignificant way) Evolution, but we have no control whatever.
In a little while we will be gone, and Evolution will, of course, go on without noticing this very much.
It is significantly more a matter of convenience than baby size. The entire OB industry is based around convenience, painlessness and reducing the amount of time medical staff need to actually work on you. They want to clear the bed for the next patient as quickly as possible. Another significant part of the problem is medical care professionals (at least in the U.S.) treat childbirth like a pathology rather than a life event. Both the doctors and the patients treat this like something that should be scheduled, painless, and regimented when the process is unpredictable and defies easy scheduling.
My wife had both of our children at home under the care of a midwife. The birth was painful and messy, but our children are healthy. Contrary to what you see on medical shows, movies and TV, most of the events of birth take a significant amount of time... it's not 5 minutes between "my water broke" and "baby is born" unless you have to fit a birth inside a 22-minute show.
Cost-wise, the home birth cost much more out of pocket, but was actually significantly cheaper overall - somewhere between 15 and 30% of the cost of a hospital birth. Of course, these costs are hidden when you have insurance, but be assured that somebody pays that extra 70-85%.
Am I the only one who immediately thought about all the breeds of dogs humans have essentially bred to suffer because they were artifically selected to have such smooshed, huge faces they can barely breath, and also can't even deliver their own puppies without a C-section?
THis same theory holds true for all medical procedures and medications. Anything that artificially extends life where life would have otherwise been extinguished keeps the unfavorable genes that would otherwise have not passed to future generations in the gene pool.
Pulling out the evolution explanation is a bit of a stretch at this point. As noted in the summary it could very well be that doctors are much more apt to do a cesarean these days at the drop of a hat (either out of concern for the patient or simple impatience). It could also be the increase in the number of overweight people, better living conditions, etc.
Instead of letting that stupid shit rot at -1, why do you spend your karma to quote it and bring it above the noise threshold? What do you think you're accomplishing by making it visible?
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Trump was in the white house a few weeks ago and he did shake Obama's hand. Coincidence? I think not.
What do you think you're accomplishing by making it visible?
Putting on display for all those to see the stupidity that exists in the world. Is better to let the idiots speak to display their idiocy to everyone than to let the idiots fester in their own conspiratorial nut job bubble where they validate their own existence by their own retardation.
All her friends said she was mad; plan the date with your Dr. for a C-section
All her friends were jealous; they can't stand that kind if thing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
when my son was born (Kaiser Permanente) on 2001 doctors gave the option of a c-section even when one wasn't needed. It made it easier for surgeons to schedule there day. Now in 2016 Kaiser has changed there approach (much the same with no antibiotics for colds). The promoted mantra is natural child birth natural feeding natures way is best.
Or, someone in genetics could instead observe:
1. the age of the mother increases the birth weight
2. the nutrition provided to the mother increases the birth weight
3. availability of pre-natal care (vitamins, medical interventions) increases the birth weight
An observation that the birth weight is increasing in a short span does not indicate that humans are genetically changing. Human women used to be 5'4" on average as adults, and in some countries are now 6'. A 6' woman would tend to have a larger baby.
Now, if you want to talk about elephants developing to not have tusks, that's evolution in action.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Or maybe he's now a very powerful person and that's intimidating? nah, let's go with the conspiracy theory!
http://www.unfocus.com/
Genetic design will solve this. Once we start doing it on a large scale, adaptive evolution will be a thing of the past!
http://www.unfocus.com/
We are now entering.. The Scary Door (spooky music)
Not that I'm supporting Trump (he's more evil than Cthulhu, almost as bad as Hillary), but have you noticed how those 30ish women who accused him of sexual assault all went silent the moment the election was over? Shouldn't they be trying to bring him to justice? Maybe, just maybe, it was all staged false accusations as certain people like this kind of methods? See Assange, or what esr was tipped about.
Do you have any reason to believe the accusations have actually been dropped, as opposed to just "not being in the papers every day"?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Mod parent up!
Please stop feeding the trolls you imbecile.
Bangalore is a shit hole. Pune is the place to be! Https://www.punerealestate.com
Please explain how giving birth at home is costly. Do you really mean to say "giving birth at home using a professional midwife service and round the clock caregivers outside of a hospital is costly"?
...size are heritable/genetically determined in the first place
if everything were heritable/genetic then we'd never have childhood fatal cancer cases anymore since those kids don't live long enough to have their own children
the more concerning trend, I suppose, which is more meaningfully genetic is that those with lower IQ's tend to have more children than those with higher IQ's...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwZ0ZUy7P3E
BREAKING: Trump worse than Cthulhu
Stop letting mainstream ignorance and its media overlords shape your opinions.
Any medical procedure that prevents young humans from dying is affecting our evolution. Cesarean births, preemie survival, and fertility treatments are going to affect the gene pool. Vaccinations that prevent death are going to affect the gene pool. In the event of a catastrophic failure in the medical industry, we will be seeing lots of deaths from just these four areas. Natural selection makes the being that is able to survive the event more prevalent, and that gene line will prevail. We don't have that anymore because of modern medicine. Natural selection does not apply to humans with access to modern medicine. Our gene pool is getting sloppy when compared to other species that must survive in the wild, as we once did, but no longer do.
But how is Pune compared to Bangkok? (giggity)
This space unintentionally left blank.
Just sterilize anyone born via cesarean, problem solved!
Most chihuahua dog births are with C-section
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Let the world get rid of second generation obese Americans. Second generation Americans of obese parents are too large to pass through the birth canal. Just create a food shortage or triple the price of fast-food and you will see more normal sized babies. MJ
This isn't reddit.
Anything we do affects future generations. Anyone could have figured out that by playing with natural selection, we alter the course of human genetics and usually for the worse.
This may be cold, but the fact we nurture babies with anything from infant asthma to clubfoot means those traits get perpetuated back into the gene pool. The movie 300 had it right. The "strong" hasn't survived for several generations now and we're paying the price.
(Before the SJW's comment, my wife has asthma, but even she knows we should not pass it on)
Yeah, when people disappear from the news it isn't always because they've gone into hiding. Sometimes the news just doesn't care about them anymore.