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.

Comments

More likely medical practice, not evolution

[Kjella]

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.

Re: More likely medical practice, not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that is incorrect. The study is estimating that 3.6% of babies are now too large to fit down the birth canal instead of 3% a few decades ago. It doesn't sound like that's based on the number of cesarean procedures performed, but based on measuring babies at the time of birth. It's more likely that a change in prenatal care could explain a lot of the trend, if mothers are more careful about receiving good medical care and avoiding consuming unhealthy things during pregnancy. A trend toward healthier babies should be accompanied by larger babies. Also, there may be a trend for some previous healthy babies to be overweight now due to the increase in adult obesity. Both of these would generally result in larger babies, which is what the study is focused on.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

More than half of births in Greece (where i am from) are done with Cesarean Section (C.S.), which is the highest rate in the world - while just 1/5 (still large rate) of babies from legal/illigal immigrant families are delivered by C.S., almost 2/3 of the babies from Greek families are born with C.S. because: 1. we have the highest rate of doctors (plus gynecologists) per population in the world... so...! 2. Greek families, and their doctors and other medical personel, find it convenient to deliver the babies specific days in the week and specific hours in the day, so they program the delivery (http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/3/288.full).

Re: More likely medical practice, not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah no. Sorry. Cuba in fact has more doctors. Cuba is a doctor factory - they literally export them all over the world. Greece is up there, but lags behind several countries.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[SteveOHT]

I agree it is low growth from the economic view alone. The medical system's tendency to overuse any procedure for ultimately what are financial reasons makes the number seemingly ridiculously low unless somehow "do no harm" kicked in. Nah. It's a mystery to me.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[rholtzjr]

Suggestion: more coffee before math in the morning.

0.036/0.030 = 1.2

FTFY

Re: More likely medical practice, not evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

He meant real doctors. Cuban doctors are more like glorified nurses and usually can't pass the licensing exam outside of their own country.

That article says this is because of language barrier and beaurocratic hurdles, not medical competency.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[rmdingler]

Clearly, 120% of a number is not a 20% increase.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[Hognoxious]

I heard (from the mother-in-law of a Greek) that it was a status thing.

Like having false teeth was at one time.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[rholtzjr]

Nope, he did not show his work.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[CanadianRealist]

I submitted the article. I completely agree with what you say. I did mention the idea that the definition of babies being "too large" might be changing due to cesarean becoming more routine. And I agree this seems to be happening too fast.

What I considered really interesting was the question: if cesarean became the normal method of delivery for an extended period of time (many generations) could humans end up at a point where natural birth was not possible?

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[ChrisMaple]

This is one of the regions that might benefit from genetic modification. Wider birth canal caused by different genes seems like an important improvement for humanity.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[HiThere]

There are reasons why that's a poor idea. E.g., wider hips pose mobility issues. The system really needs a thorough redesign so that birth doesn't need to fit through the pelvic girdle, but that's far beyond us. The current system was designed for creatures with horizontal body position and small head size. For that it works fine. As it is... it puts strong constraints on development.

Don't think that this is the only place where history impacts evolution, though. Spiders have to drink their dinner because their brain is in a circle around their esophagus (or whatever you call that part of a spider). This worked out fine originally, but spiders became successful, and started growing and getting smarter, so their brains got larger, and now they need a liquid diet. If they get any smarter they won't be able to eat at all.

And speaking of the esophagus, consider the human trachea. Ever have something "go down the wrong pipe"? That's because of a very old design decision that's now apparently impossible to evolve a solution for. The lungs share the plumbing with the gut in the neck and head. There are lots of other similar features calling for a re-factoring of the design, but evolution doesn't work that way. All the intermediates must we not only working, but competitive WRT the prior model. No intermediate regressions allowed. (Except, of course, at times like after a major extinction event, when the selection pressure temporarily becomes quite low.)

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[swillden]

What I considered really interesting was the question: if cesarean became the normal method of delivery for an extended period of time (many generations) could humans end up at a point where natural birth was not possible?

I think it's likely that before too many more generations the normal process will be to grow babies in artificial wombs, and that could eventually make it so that a significant percentage of women become unable to bear children the old-fashioned way. Although we'd lose the evolutionary pressure for wide hips for birthing, it doesn't seem like there are any evolutionary pressures against wide hips, so I don't see why they'd disappear.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[CrimsonAvenger]

if cesarean became the normal method of delivery for an extended period of time (many generations) could humans end up at a point where natural birth was not possible?

Possibly.

Or not.

Such a situation would allow larger-brained humans to be born with increasing regularity. It would not require that larger-brained humans be born, just allow for the possibility.

Would that qualify as "evolution"? *I* think so, but I am not an evolutionary biologist, so what do I know?

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[IanBal]

I consider this to be medical practice, not the body. My girlfriend wanted to give birth at home here in Vienna to avoid all of the clinical procedures that are forced upon women in hospitals. We had to go to hospital because the baby was "too big". The hospital staff did nothing to assist a natural birth and gave us no information before just doing their clinical procedures. Through the withholding of information and passiveness and unwillingness to support a natural birth, the hospital succeeded in forcing a cesarian. As we later discovered from an experienced , a natural birth would most likely have been possible with some exercises during labour and crouching instead of lying. The medical profession makes itself more and more important by withholding information, taking the decision making power away from the patient and forcing a much more clinical event than a natural event.

Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution

[Hognoxious]

Do some research, you fat dago idiot. Start by googling "false teeth 21st birthday".

ummmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:ummmm ....

[jordanjay29]

Attractiveness has varied wildly throughout history. At many points in time, wider hips were prized for childbearing as well as beauty.

Re:ummmm ....

[Anonymous Coward]

There has only been one documented, (Poorly...), instance in History that Humanity physicality changed in a relatively short period of time- the 14th century. Starting in China, maybe, it spread throughout India, and then the Caucasus, into the Middle East and then north deep into the Scandinavian Countries. In two or three generations, half of the population of Europe died off due just to the Black Deaths. We don't know much about the other Civilizations.
One curious outcome can be seen in the clothing of the period. Europeans somehow got significantly taller over the following Century, after being stuck at Roman heights for over a thousand years. (Check out Suits Of Armor for a striking example.) Whether due to better nutrition; famines were common before the Plagues due to overpopulation and poor Farming practices, or whether there was some recessive Genetics going on due to past uncounted and unrecorded Plagues, is not now known. It's probably both; certainly poor nutrition can stunt inherited growth tendencies. And note that even without the Plagues, Infant Mortality bounced around 50%... Also note that this time was also the start of the "Little Ice Age", so Environment can't be ignored.
The European Countries in general, and the US in particular, have plateaued; 18 year old Males whose statistics have been gathered for centuries by those who like to play with War, have been tending to an average height of ~70 inches. In 1914, the average height of the Fresh Crop was ~67 inches.
But the growth in height is startling in some newly developing countries. In South Korea, it is now ~69 inches for Males. But in 1914, it was ~63 inches. Six inches is a pretty good jump, but South Korean women have jumped further- A gain of ~8 inches.

People have been growing bigger, but not at the same rates or at the same time. Generally, skeletal dimensions scale; taller women have wider pelvises. (Some populations in hellholes are actually getting shorter.):
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/27/487391773/americans-are-shrinking-while-chinese-and-koreans-sprout-up

Cesarean births are still rare, and to draw any conclusion about general Evolution from their _recent_ trends is foolish. This is a damn stupid study; I suspect that there is an Agenda at work here. BTW, over the last few decades, the average US or Canadian baby has gotten slightly smaller:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704423204575017471267586344

Re:ummmm ....

[dcw3]

Height change is easily attributable to dietary improvement. You could almost see it happening in Korea over the last few decades as they added meat to their diets. That's not an evolutionary change.

Re:ummmm ....

[rickb928]

I've thought this through a few times. Same conclusion each time.

For humans, women are the selectors. Men are cheap. Women are the required and scarce resource, that is, willing women. Most any man is willing, with few exceptions.

Unfortunately, women today are using different criteria, the most important change being that they no longer have to put up with the man even for the duration of the pregnancy. They also need not even pretend to choose a man able to support them and their child(ren). Being 'willing' is less a part of this than ever.

Extending the freedom of choice and independence to even the means of delivery can only increase the incidence of Cesarean deliveries.

This also will result in significant divergence of the population between affluent and impoverished women. No money, need a man. Money, no man. Cruel, brutal, and simplistic, but true.

It does not bode well for our species. We should also be looking at the evolution of the family.

Re:ummmm ....

[Hognoxious]

I think you're right that no genotypic drift occurred. People were certainly small again from the industrial revolution through WW1.

The British army - admittedly scraping the bottom of the barrel by this point - had regiments of men around 5'2". One advantage - I guess they could dig a trench quicker...

Re:ummmm ....

[operagost]

No, it's not. Evolution is something that happens over multiple generations, because it's tied to DNA.

Re:ummmm ....

[Oswald McWeany]

Even today, studies have shown that hip to waist ratio is the number one factor in men apprising a woman of being attractive. (no I won't provide sources, people welcome to google it).

When showed a variety of women and asked to rank them, men would consistently rank women higher who had a larger hip to waist ratio. It turned out to be a larger factor than things like breast size preference, butt size, height preference, race, weight... for skinny girls and chubby girls the statistic that matters most for most men is hip to waist factor. Even if most don't even realize they look at such a thing. We subconsciously associate it with femininity.

Re:ummmm ....

[Oswald McWeany]

Height change is definitely linked more to diet than evolution.

There is a well known example of evolution in humans though; the ability to digest lactose as an adult. Industrialisation and access to food has slowed the evolutionary change as there is less pressure for it now, but starting 12,000 years ago, the ability to drink the milk of animals as an adult was a strong evolutionary advantage- and spreading out of the middle east, it quickly spread into most parts of Europe and western Asia.

Nowadays with food surplus in most parts of the world, and milk alternatives we've stopped evolving towards being able to drink milk as adults, but in some parts of the world it is close to 100% of the population who can drink milk.

Re:ummmm ....

[Oswald McWeany]

No it isn't because it isn't hereditary. If your children were to live on the same diet and have same health care as a Roman, they probably wouldn't reach 5ft tall. It's like if I cut off my thumb, my children wouldn't inherit that trait, they wouldn't be born without thumbs.

If people get taller because of better health and diet that is environmental change not evolutionary change.

Now, we can confuse this with epigenetics, it appears some genes that we already can be turned on and off and that can be passed from generation to generation. Someone who lived through a famine is more likely to have a child who has a propensity to be obese. No genetic change, but the genes she already had that makes her body horde fat is turned on because of the environmental conditions her mother lived in. Height doesn't appear to be linked to epigenetics (that we know of).

Re:ummmm ....

[avandesande]

Divorce rates and unwed birth are much higher among the poor. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:ummmm ....

[Nidi62]

One curious outcome can be seen in the clothing of the period. Europeans somehow got significantly taller over the following Century, after being stuck at Roman heights for over a thousand years. (Check out Suits Of Armor for a striking example.)

I remember a line from (I believe) Timeline by Michael Crichton, and while it is obviously a fictional book the line makes sense on it's face: most of the suits of armor surviving today were either display pieces or ceremonial. As such, the craftsmen and artisans working on them went for smaller and more ornate in order to demonstrate their skill. Actual combat armor would have been larger for the comfort and protection of the wearer, but due to the nature of combat most pieces would not survive to today.

Re:ummmm ....

[Grishnakh]

Looks like we'll be evolving into the Eloi and Morlocks before long....

Here in the DC area, I'm seeing a bunch of (usually affluent, professional) women who seem to be giving up on finding a man and just having themselves a kid in their mid-30s to mid-40s somewhere. I matched with one woman on Tinder who was about 43 I think, and we quickly had a phone call to chat, and within just a few minutes, this woman I had never even met in person and only started talking to from a dating site was telling me how she had already been through one round of IVF!!! I ended up going on a casual date with her, but she didn't want to see me again; this was back just before the primaries, and we talked about politics a little bit, and I think she didn't like something I said about a political issue, even though we both liked Bernie.

She's not the only one like that I dated who wanted kids quickly. Another woman I dated didn't like that I lived a little bit too far away (I don't live right in DC like so many of these women), and that my divorce was too recent. As far as I can tell, these women are all ridiculously picky, and unwilling to compromise on anything, which is why they're now 40+ and still single. I feel sorry for their kids; they're going to grow up with no father at all (IVF donation or maybe some guy they picked up at a bar, or in the case of another woman I chatted with on Tinder, some guy she met in Africa...), and a mother who's never there because she's always at work.

Re:ummmm ....

[dcw3]

Um, no. Just as if your parents starved you, and stunted your growth, that's not an evolutionary change either.

Re:ummmm ....

[rickb928]

In the US this is solved by state welfare. Only the middle class is penalized by divorce, and the welfare class can avoid marriage altogether.

Re:ummmm ....

[Half-pint HAL]

Ceremonial armour is still worn by people though, and people don't change size between time of war and ceremonies. Even if the ceremonial armour was made of smaller, lighter sections, you can still see from the geometry of the armour the size of the person it was designed for.

Re:ummmm ....

[brantondaveperson]

Educated in America, it seems.

Re:ummmm ....

[brantondaveperson]

Also, if your arm is chopped off, you've evolved to have only one arm. I think I'm beginning to see how this works.

Re:ummmm ....

[goose-incarnated]

Divorce rates and unwed birth are much higher among the poor. Sorry to burst your bubble.

You are grouping two different statistics into a single statistic which you then proceed to misunderstand. Unwed birth is higher amount the poor. Divorce rate is higher among the middle class.

The reason for the former is because this new invention, the welfare-providing state, becomes the provider and no mate is needed. The reason for the latter is because another new invention (maintenance) means that the mate will provide for the offspring regardless of whether he is actually a mate or not (in some cases, regardless of whether he is the biological parent or not).

The most logical choice for a poor woman (who has fewer options in getting a high-earning mate) is to have both the state and a mate contribute: be an unmarried 'single' mom and have a boyfriend/husband. This is the 'high unwed birth' statistic in the poor-class - the primary contributor to the child is the state and the secondary is the boyfriend/husband.

The most logical choice for a middle-class woman is to have a child with a middle-class mate; even if this means that she does not get the state contribution, it's highly likely that the middle-class father will contribute much more than the state will, so it's worth her effort. After securing a childhoods worth of income from her mate, it's in her best interest to find a new mate who will also contribute. In this way she has the primary contributor who will, under force if need be, contribute to the offspring and a secondary contributor as an added bonus. This is the 'high divorce rate' statistic.

Alternate explanations

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

There's an obvious alternative explanation

[bigHairyDog]

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...

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[execthis]

rGBH hormone residues fed to make cows produce more milk being consumed by humans.

So glad I'm vegan.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Are you scared of becoming a big baby?

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Bongo]

Lierre Keith makes a good point, that returning to natural grazing cows would be a huge benefit for the environment. Yes, I'm a methane fart denier. But her concern is with biodiversity, and all that tofu and grain is coming from stripping the land back to monocultures. I'm all for eating meat grown in a lab, if needed, but as humans, we have small digestive systems and big brains, and we didn't evolve that way eating veggies. But that's evolution for you, a lot of trial and error. Like this with the babies. Apparently there's a case that if the baby comes out "clean" via cesarian, its biome won't get booted up properly and it'll end up with various conditions later in life. So ya have to smear the face with mommy juices and poop. Because nature is just not interested in whether something looks disgusting, nor whether it is a competition between hunter and prey, nature just works how it works. That's my thought for the day, methinks.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[goose-incarnated]

rGBH hormone residues fed to make cows produce more milk being consumed by humans.

So glad I'm vegan.

Why?

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[execthis]

The first hominid ancestors to us whose brains quickly developed much larger were avid seafood eaters. There are a number of telltale biological clues to this in our physiology, including the fact that our bodies don't manufacture DHA yet our brains and nervous systems require high levels of it. Also DHA is passed through the placenta to the fetus implying that the ancestors had an abundant supply of it in their diet.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[execthis]

Because I don't consume growth hormone residues in my diet, so long as the fecal runoff water from factory farms doesn't get into the fields where my veggies grow.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[goose-incarnated]

Because I don't consume growth hormone residues in my diet, so long as the fecal runoff water from factory farms doesn't get into the fields where my veggies grow.

So, totally off-topic then? We're talking about babies and birth. You're talking about perceived health benefits.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[execthis]

If mothers consume dairy products with hormone residues their babies will be bigger, hence the increased need for C sections...

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[goose-incarnated]

If mothers consume dairy products with hormone residues their babies will be bigger, hence the increased need for C sections...

But you aren't either mother or baby. All you are doing is virtue-signalling.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[execthis]

Having an oversized body as a consequence of a lifetime diet of growth-hormone-tainted food is a deformity. There are a lot of grotesque deformities now because of various adverse dietary and environmental factors which have been considered acceptable, usually for reasons of profit.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Bongo]

Thanks, interesting. I'm an avid meat and seafood eater, so I'm kinda vague with the term "meat". Another interesting point is the biomechanics of our lower leg and foot, which make us efficient runners -- not fast runners, just efficient -- which with the loss of hair, for sweating and cooling, makes us good for endurance running and running down large animals. Well, I wish, being at a desk all day. Anyway, it would be interesting how we actually got the initial start, whether it was on the savannah, or living by the shores of water bodies, or some combination of both.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[AmiMoJo]

All this just reminds me how badly human beings are designed. Intelligent design my arse.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[quenda]

No, she is too emaciated to get pregnant.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[sinij]

Do you have any studies to support your 'residual livestock hormones - larger humans' assertion?

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Oswald McWeany]

If people stopped drinking milk many breeds of cow would go extinct. They have no natural habitat. It's a good job some people aren't vegan to help prevent the extinction of the poor domestic cow.

/ I'm being semi-facetious

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[serviscope_minor]

The first hominid ancestors to us whose brains quickly developed much larger were avid seafood eaters.

They were also avid fruit eaters (we can't make vitamin C) and avid starchy vegetable eaters (unlike our closest relatives, we can digest starch).

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: What's the easiest way to tell if someone is a vegan?

A: Just wait, they'll tell you.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[operagost]

We're not badly designed. We may just be doing things with our bodies that they weren't designed for.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[CanadianRealist]

There's an interesting TED Talk about our microbial colonies by Rob Knight, He talks about the "clean" via cesarean issue you mention.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[jbmartin6]

Thanks, I didn't know that about starch digestion. Brings me back to Jared Diamond's book "The Third Chimpanzee" which theorized that the need to consume tubers was a major driver in human divergence from other apes. Heck, starch might even have been mentioned in that book but I don't remember it.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Waffle Iron]

Because I don't consume growth hormone residues in my diet, so long as the fecal runoff water from factory farms doesn't get into the fields where my veggies grow.

Speaking of hormones, you're not also concerned about the high levels of phytoestrogens that many vegetables produce in an attempt to dispense birth control on grazing animals?

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[phantomfive]

so long as the fecal runoff water from factory farms doesn't get into the fields where my veggies grow.

If you eat organic veggies, then cow shit is put directly on the fields, on purpose, as fertilizer.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Probably some combination of both.

If you can withstand often breathless and hyperbolic writing, I do recommend the book Born to Run, that discusses the idea that homo sapiens, in particular, are the supreme runners at long distance at moderate speeds, for the purposes of running down prey to death, which is a very effective hunting method in hot & dry climates when you have not developed good hunting weapons yet. I believe the conclusions are largely correct.

However, there is another tale that suggests hominids were semi-aquatic, due to periods of time in east African where swaths of grazing/hunting grounds were periodically flooded. The evidence is circumstantial, but intriguing IMO. Opportunity: the historical fact of the flooded areas. Bipedal movement: which is easier to transition towards from chimp/ape walking styles in water where buoyancy helps you along until your descendants legs evolve towards that style of movement, plus it is obvious very useful to keep you head and children out of the water. Our nose: because a large downturned nose of our style is a rarity, but makes sense for keeping water out of the air tracts if you are dog paddling through shallow water. (Remember: that bipedalism sucks for swimming, unless you are a very skilled swimmer; in comparison, virtually all quadrupeds can be dropped into water and make their way around and not drown.) Hairless bodies and thick subcutaneous fat layer: this is a common pattern for aquatic animals. Flat feet: good for walking in mud.

Of course, this is not either/or. Both tales could easily be true. Hairless and subcutaneous fat makes sense in both scenarios.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[Tablizer]

Are you scared of becoming a big baby?

No, just of one being elected.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[jabuzz]

I note the idea of organic food for vegetarians and vegans, is a complete fantasy, as almost all organic food is fertilised with animal waste from animals that are kept for their meat.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[sinij]

*crickets*

So this is another chemtrail conspiracy theory.

Re:There's an obvious alternative explanation

[phantomfive]

No problem they can just switch to human waste and make everyone happy.

Babies and schedules

[MrKaos]

Newborns are so selfish that they don't have the *courtesy* to be born in business hours. Inconsiderate little brats.

Re:Babies and schedules

[Oswald McWeany]

That's why approve of corporal punishment for newborns born outside business hours.

Re:Babies and schedules

[MrKaos]

Look the doctor has to get to the golf game and these "babies" have to plan their life better. They're so drunk they can't even walk.

Its everywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Cesarean Births, Insulin and condoms may be affecting evolution...news at 11.

You don't say

[Euphorinaut]

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.

Re:You don't say

[Austerity Empowers]

They sometimes don't mention that doctors are often pretty quick to recommend C-sections these days, so we're unclear on just how necessary they might be. On both of my children the doctor was ready and willing to go to a C-section at first opportunity bringing it up well before due date, although it was not ultimately necessary. I suspect a C-section would have been less painful for the first child, and I can't blame the doctor for wanting to go this route for my wife's benefit, even if it wasn't absolutely necessary.

I recall studying mortality during pregnancy over time, it seems like other factors were contributing to a *growing* number of deaths during childbirth up through the enlightenment. I'm not sure C-sections explain all the issues.

What about infertility?

[houghi]

We have babies that would not have been born before. Will infertility be hereditary in the future?

Re:What about infertility?

[Hognoxious]

Yes. A study done at the University of Dublin concluded that if your parents didn't have any children you probably won't either.

Re:What about infertility?

[jabuzz]

Sorry but that is currently impossible to test because their are insufficient babies born from IVF that have actually reached adulthood to really analyse that.

I would note that Louise Brown has had two children conceived naturally and her sister Natalie has had four children all conceived naturally. For those ignorant of the facts Louise Brown was the first IVF child in the world and her sister was the fortieth born four years later.

Note that shows the low levels of IVF babies being born in the early years of the technology and why there are too few IVF born adults to really conduct any study into their fertility.

Re:What about infertility?

[Oswald McWeany]

The answer is yes. A lot of negative genes that would have resulted in a person not reaching reproductive age are being propagated whereas they might have died out if we were less advanced. Negative mutations in our genomes are not being removed like they once were.

It is theoretically possible that 200,000 years from now, humans would be completely genetically unviable without technology. (although technology will probably remove the bad mutations long before then in the real world).

Part of what the Nazi's were doing when they executed handicapped people was trying to maintain the purity of the genes and keep the "race strong" removing genetic impurities. Nasty stuff. Obviously a route we don't want to take, one can assume they wouldn't have been too happy about the number of Caesarians these days.

Re:What about infertility?

[jbmartin6]

They were on their way to inventing Hitlerian births

Re:What about infertility?

[cayenne8]

A lot of negative genes that would have resulted in a person not reaching reproductive age are being propagated whereas they might have died out if we were less advanced.

I guess that explains the dramatic rise in the number of plain old fucking stupid people I've started encountering as my life goes on.

Seriously, there really seems to be MANY more of them around these days.

Re:What about infertility?

[Oswald McWeany]

A lot of negative genes that would have resulted in a person not reaching reproductive age are being propagated whereas they might have died out if we were less advanced.

I guess that explains the dramatic rise in the number of plain old fucking stupid people I've started encountering as my life goes on.

Seriously, there really seems to be MANY more of them around these days.

It's way too hard to win a Darwin Award these days.

Re:What about infertility?

[Anne Thwacks]

A study done at the University of Dublin

How many pints of Guinness were consumed in the course of this research? Can I have some too please?

I love the misnomer in the title

[execthis]

"Evolving". Hah. Humans are effectively replicating but I would say that that process is quite far from evolving at this point in time.

Re:I love the misnomer in the title

[rickb928]

Define 'evolving'.

I bet you assume it's a positive, beneficial thing.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[mwvdlee]

Yeah, it's just all the rage to have Caesarians nowadays.
A mother just isn't "in" with the popular moms if she gave birth the outdated way.
Natural birth is just sooooo 2015.

Is age a factor?

[geekmux]

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.

Re:Is age a factor?

[Rande]

I've heard quite a few women look down on mothers who chose to have children at 18 or 19 - either for being considered feckless scroungers bleeding the social system dry or for not being feminist enough and having a full career first.

I think 18 is a very good age to have children. Straight after high school and it's not too late to go on to college at around 22ish. Admittedly you'd need a lot of family support, which is a good thing no matter what your age.

Re:Is age a factor?

[geekmux]

I've heard quite a few women look down on mothers who chose to have children at 18 or 19 - either for being considered feckless scroungers bleeding the social system dry or for not being feminist enough and having a full career first.

Well, bleeding the social system can definitely have arguments against the idea of having children at an early age, but I think that particular factor has more to do with society looking down upon women who literally have many children for the sole purpose of increasing a welfare check. Unfortunately, society also has a hand in looking down upon young mothers for not "prioritizing" a career first. In the meantime, we wonder why so many kids grow up having more of a relationship with the daycare workers than their own parents. I feel there is a societal impact to that disconnect across the aggregate.

I think 18 is a very good age to have children. Straight after high school and it's not too late to go on to college at around 22ish. Admittedly you'd need a lot of family support, which is a good thing no matter what your age.

This is very true. It can get quite a bit more difficult on the other end of the spectrum when the parents are still raising children in their 40's and 50's. They're tasked with living an active lifestyle to keep up, but often find themselves saddled with back issues and other medical conditions related to age. Youth definitely has its advantages when it comes to raising children, which is a factor most adults look past in favor of degrees and careers.

I wonder how the mentality towards degrees and careers taking a priority over establishing families will shift as more and more humans are displaced in the workforce with automation and AI...

Re:Is age a factor?

[Jzanu]

Yes. You are a monster who needs to be euthanised first.

Re:Is age a factor?

[mvdwege]

Yes, because the incidence of that happening is almost insignificant, and using it to stigmatise all young mothers is simply wrong.

Re:Is age a factor?

[Darinbob]

's only modern society where women were expected to be stay-at-home, and even then that was only in the upper and middle classes in industrially advanced societies. Humans evolved with both sexes working due to the need for survival. The stereotypical Victorian household is anything but traditional.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Joce640k]

It's actually a thing, Google "elective cesarean birth".

Women want to plan their expensive baby-party for a particular day, etc. You can't leave that to chance, not when you need to book the venue and the catering.

A lot of women also don't want to go through all that scary 'labor'' business or get their prize-winning vagina all stretched out.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[LiSrt]

A lot of women also don't want to go through all that scary 'labor'' business

Who would?

Not evolution

[eneville]

It's not evolution. Unless you consider operating theatres to be symbiotic. Take the surgery out, would the resulting deaths be considered devolution?

Re:Not evolution

[Oswald McWeany]

Evolution is not linear and does not mean "improving". Evolution merely means a general change in gene frequencies over time. In terms of biology there is no such thing as "devolution". The increase in frequency of a trait that one might perceive as "negative" is still "evolution".

Re:Not evolution

[operagost]

The idea is that it's short-circuiting the natural selection that would make women with narrow pelvises less likely to pass on their genetic characteristics.

Re:Not evolution

[CanadianRealist]

It might be evolution, however it is not evolution by natural selection.

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Anonymous Coward]

Labor carries risks, Caesars carry risks. The difference is you are much more in control of the risks in a caesar.

A zero complication vaginal birth is best case. An elected caeser second. Then a long way third is emergency caeser followed even further by major complication vaginal delivery.

As for recovery, an elective caeser is about 6 weeks total recovery.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[swb]

I'm curious about the vagina stretching.

Is this a self-derived concept, they just assume that having a natural birth will permanently stretch their vagina?

Or is this a learned concept, literally "an old wives tale", with a natural birth mother complaining after having a baby that she noticed her vagina stretched after birth, affecting sex, and future mothers choosing cesarean birth to avoid it?

My personal experience is that it was generally more age dependent that childbirth dependent but not completely consistent even then, with tightness varying without childbirth changes, including women had given birth tighter than women who hadn't of the same age.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[MightyYar]

You just came here to brag that you've sampled a statistically significant number of women.

dogs did this

[deadweight]

Some breeds of dogs, bulldogs maybe?, HAVE to be born via C-section. The puppies can no longer fit the natural way.

Re:dogs did this

[Oswald McWeany]

Some breeds of dogs, bulldogs maybe?, HAVE to be born via C-section. The puppies can no longer fit the natural way.

And now some women have to have children born via C-Section. I think this is proof that bestiality is on the rise.

Re:dogs did this

[LordLucless]

Yeah, it's English bulldogs. But the reason is pretty much the opposite of what this "study" claims - it's not a case of caesareans allowing genes for narrow pelvises to stay in the population, it's a case of selective breeding changing the shape of the dogs. Deliberate breeding, not a side-effect of too many caesareans.

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[minogully]

Not sure why you're comparing haircuts to childbirth, but I'd have to agree on all your points regardless.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to suggest that it's not all that scary, not all that painful and not all that stressful. I encourage you to put a grapefruit up your ass and squeeze it out - and it still wouldn't be nowhere near the pain women feels during labor. Have you ever had a cramp? How long did it last? Try to prolong it for 6 hours every 5-10 minutes.

And why it's a bad thing women try to prevent their vaginas from being stretched out? Imagine that each time your partner gets pregnant someone cuts off one or two inches of your dick. Would you try to prevent that?

Doctors and patients are more risk (& pain) av

[Bearhouse]

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...

Re:This is why we need Trump

[dcw3]

TRUMP 2016!!!

I don't think this is what he meant by "grab them by the pussy"

De-evolution

[markdavis]

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.

Re:De-evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Properly speaking, there is no such thing as de-evolution. Evolutionary pressure optimizes for survival in some particular environment, and nothing more. In this case, the particular environment is changing to one that includes medical science, so certain types of genetic specialization is no longer needed. People don't de-evolve more than bacteria de-evolve when they lose antibiotic resistance due to a lack of antibiotics :)

Re:De-evolution

[rizole]

Genetically more diverse more like. Genes can only be poor (provide a disadvantage) in context. When society selects for genes that nature would normally select out then those gene confer an advantage. Who knows, when the zombie apocalypse comes, the "defect" you have might end up saving the human race.

Re:De-evolution

[Darinbob]

You should explain what de-evolving means. It's not a scientific word. As a hint, cockroaches are more evolved than humans as they have been evolving for a longer time and with shorter generations.

Re:De-evolution

[Gilgaron]

Mutations that are harmful in the short term can be beneficial in the long term. In antibiotic resistance, the resistant organisms are initially less viable than their susceptible brethren. The antibiotic doesn't work because they already have partially defective cellular machinery where the antibiotic is targeting. With continued use of the antibiotic, without their more efficient yet susceptible peers around to keep their population low, the mutants eventually have further mutations that compensate for the defect at the antibiotic target and then they become equally fit as their peers in the absence of the antibiotic, as well. Next thing you know, there's MRSA everywhere. So removing the selective filter from some aspects of humanity isn't necessarily bad for the gene pool in the long term.

Re:De-evolution

[Ann O'Nymous-Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:De-evolution

[markdavis]

I am replying to myself in lieu of one of the other replies.

Indeed "de-evolving" isn't scientific, it is just a word I am throwing at the issue. My point was that we, as a species, are more physically fragile than ever because we have become dependent on medical science to survive now. Any children I would have are more likely to have life-long health problems because I had the same problems and lived due to medications and medical interventions. And it is compounded over and over again through each generation. Natural selection has not just halted, but been REVERSED- a kind of "unnatural selection" remains....

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[dcw3]

Who would want to go through surgery if they didn't have to, and then go through a year long period of recovery?

Apparently, at least 3%...that's just the number that were granted, not the number who requested it.
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/he...

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[dcw3]

I'll just say that in my anecdotal case, where the doctor showed me the view up there, and I thought I'd never fit in that thing again...It all snapped back. Those things are AMAZING!

Everything affects evolution

[fluffernutter]

Anything that affects mate selection affects evolution... Mundane things such as wearing makup and shaving body hair are probably affecting evolution.

Flawed conclusions

[JoePete]

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.

Re:Flawed conclusions

[phantomfive]

That is why they called it a hypothesis and not a conclusion. They don't have 'flawed conclusions because they don't have any conclusions."

click bait

[AndyKron]

There's no evidence. This is click-bait bullshit.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Talderas]

The muscles of the vagina can weaken from many births which causes them to be unable to hold the vaginal wall properly. This in turn causes the vaginal wall to descend out of the body. There's a cosmetic surgery to correct it.

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Hognoxious]

Caesars carry risks

I agree. Unwashed lettuce can give you worms, and raw eggs can carry salmonella.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[rickb928]

And in the US at least, Obstetricians do schedule C Sections for their convenience.

It doesn't matter why. Cesarean delivery has consequences, and some of those may well be genetic manipulations.

And all this explains a multitude of things for me, while leaving several others unexplained, and exposing an inconvenient truth. Darn. I was hoping not, but so it is.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[rickb928]

Subjective evaluations aren't very useful in this area, and are the cause of much confusion.

Re: This is why we need Trump

[bev_tech_rob]

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...

Zip lock bags

[p51d007]

splice the DNA with a zip lock bag for women ;)

Are babies bigger and healthier or just fatter?

[jhecht]

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?

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[demonlapin]

It's not about keeping it tight for their partners, it's about pelvic floor weakness and urinary incontinence later in life.

Re: This is why we need Trump

[rmdingler]

Were you ever prescribed antibiotics as a child?

Maybe your genes could've been tested better before you reached reproductive age.

Overspecialization can lead to extinction

[tepples]

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.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Oswald McWeany]

A lot of women also don't want to go through all that scary 'labor'' business or get their prize-winning vagina all stretched out.

Heroism is alive and well.

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Oswald McWeany]

Caesars carry risks.

Especially if you're a Gaul, or believe in Rome remaining a republic.

Re:This is why we need Trump

[KiloByte]

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.

Genetic Engineering Solution

[Jzanu]

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.

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[mwvdlee]

Unless you're from this particular village in Gaul, in which case Caesars offer barely any risk.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Joce640k]

I'm curious about the vagina stretching.

Rule 34...

Less risk, more reward

[thunderclees]

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.

Re:In other news...

[Oswald McWeany]

Indeed it could. Genes that make a male more likely to rape (aggression?) are not getting passed on like they would without abortion. Genes that make females more maternal (more likely to not want abortion) are going to be passed on more.

Abortion could be helping lead to a more "domesticated" humanity.

That's highly debatable

[rsilvergun]

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...

That assumes medical tech exists in a vacuum

[rsilvergun]

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.

So what?..

[mi]

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

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...

Re: This is why we need Trump

[RobotRunAmok]

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?

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[cayenne8]

It's not about keeping it tight for their partners...

Err...I beg to differ.

I mean, most guys grow weary REALLY quickly of loose pussy and saggy tits.

Those two things are a big reason they divorce and 'upgrade' to a newer model after a few years.

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[sinij]

Caesars carry risks.

Et tu, Brute?

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[PIBM]

My wife says that childbirth (4 kids, so it`s a relatively good sample) is nothing compared to either kidney stones or appendicitis. There, stop propagating that myth, it`s not that bad.

Tools and evolution

[ripvlan]

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.

Re:Why are larger humans a good thing?

[Jzanu]

In humans brain development is directly tied to prenatal development. Think about that one.

Re:Why are larger humans a good thing?

[Jzanu]

Yes, physical size allows for larger cranial volume which is directly linked to intelligence across all primates. Prenatal development to greater physical size allows more neurons to form early - we may see trillions instead of billions of neurons forming eventually. This directly allows for greater intelligence later.

Whoooosh (nt)

[Brannon]

nt

A lot of men take Viagra, is that natural?

[Brannon]

Or is it only a perversion of nature when women make an elective medical choice?

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[mjr167]

It also has to do with a lot of doctors pushing cesareans. A natural birth is risky. It also happens at 2AM, takes an indeterminate amount of time, and might end in an emergency C-section if things go wrong.

Take too long pushing? The doctors want to cut you open. When I had my first kid there were two doctors in the room due to it being near a shift change. The doctor that had been up all night was telling me she wanted to cut me open. The doctor that had just walked in the door said "She's fine, the baby's fine... let her push." Second doctor then sat down in a chair in his kakies and drank his coffee until the baby fell out.

And, So What ?

[JimSadler]

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.

Bad Study

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:This is why we need Trump

[dcw3]

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.

Re:Doctors and patients are more risk (& pain)

[Lousifer]

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?

[Jfetjunky]

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?

Re: This is why we need Trump

[apoc.famine]

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?

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Evtim]

and dislocation of a joint. that's what I was told by medics. Stone, joint and labor, in that order (I know what I did here;)
My case was about three hours of 'labor', dislocation shoulder - non stop pain. Did not cry but moaned quite a bit...

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[vlad30]

their prize-winning vagina all stretched out.

Actually its the Coin Slot and Prize Chute all in one

Re: This is why we need Trump

[penandpaper]

Trump was in the white house a few weeks ago and he did shake Obama's hand. Coincidence? I think not.

Re: This is why we need Trump

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[0100010001010011]

Yeah, it's just all the rage to have Caesarians nowadays.

Uh, no.

Source: Wife is a doctor. Also went in and did things 'natural'.

The new rage is hot tubs.

Re:Doctors and patients are more risk (& pain)

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[phantomfive]

My wife says that childbirth (4 kids, so it`s a relatively good sample)

A sample of one person is not very good. Some women have it easy, others have it hard. Those who have it easy tend to have it easy for all their kids, and their bragging about it annoys other people who didn't have it so easy.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[PIBM]

It`s not easy because there are worst things, but I see enough women that have more than 1 kid, and she would never want to have either more kidney stones or another appendicitis.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[swb]

I really doubt that in most cases that's a specific concern for women and I would be really surprised if even gynecologists mention this to the typical patient having a couple of kids unless they have some reason to believe it's a risk. Maybe they might check and mention it for a woman having her 4th or 5th child.

I'd be more inclined to believe that women are concerned first of all about cosmetics and then sexual partner perception second, especially if the mother in question is on the young side of childbearing age.

My experience has been that women are really sensitive about "losing their looks" (bordering on narcissism) and other physical changes due to childbirth. While they may not really care whether they are "tight enough" specifically, I would not be at all surprised if it didn't cross their minds. It's one thing to not lose all the baby weight, quite another to not lose the baby weight and be a less sexually fulfilling partner.

Quite the contrary

[Brigadier]

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.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Brigadier]

This is odd, speaking from personal experience saggy t*ts and loose p*ssy is more to do with poor maintenance. I love my wife we've been married 8 years and she is having our second boy. You may consider kegals and not wearing a sport brah and yoga pants all day long.

Or, a geneticist could instead say

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Anne Thwacks]

So its not the fast food - its evolution?

Or is it that a lot of people assume the rest of the world is like America?

Re:This is why we need Trump

[Touvan]

Or maybe he's now a very powerful person and that's intimidating? nah, let's go with the conspiracy theory!

Genetic design will solve this

[Touvan]

Genetic design will solve this. Once we start doing it on a large scale, adaptive evolution will be a thing of the past!

Re: This is why we need Trump

[Frankzy]

We are now entering.. The Scary Door (spooky music)

Re:This is why we need Trump

[Half-pint HAL]

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"?

Re:Why are larger humans a good thing?

[Jzanu]

Read. I'm not here to lecture to you. It's basic knowlede in evolutionary anthropology and anatomy.

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Darinbob]

Is this due to women becoming less picky and settling for the first douchebag that comes along?

This is assuming such things like pelvis...

[Bourdain]

...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

Re: Buy Flats In Bangalore - India Reside Online R

[Scarletdown]

But how is Pune compared to Bangkok? (giggity)

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[Scarletdown]

I encourage you to put a grapefruit up your ass and squeeze it out

That sounds hot!

Rule 34, man. And if that fails, I charge you with carrying out Rule 35.

already the case for chihuahua

[bingoUV]

Most chihuahua dog births are with C-section

Re:Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[wyHunter]

In the UK, it's described as being 'too posh to push' which is a great way to describe it.

Re: Pratchett and Baxter already predicted this

[PIBM]

She didn't take any medication to reduce the pain, pressure points usage is the only thing she asked for (and I obliged rather easily) in order to 'stay in her bubble'. I do not know what would be an emergency birth for you (not having a returned baby and discovering it too late, perhaps? It seems like a medical inattention or error in that case -- so perhaps more of a medical issue with the baby about to die ? In this case that's why there's a need for cesarean birth..) so please send more details if you want to discuss.

Re:This is why we need Trump

[guises]

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.