Owen Lovejoy.

[Digit]

Just been reading a paper about Lovejoy and his work on perambulation.
(Exciting stuff eh?) He suggests, or his reviewer interprets it as implying that the use of forceps and Cesarean deliveries may be influencing human development as these methods permit the survival of larger brained individuals than would otherwise be the case.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Just been reading a paper about Lovejoy and his work on perambulation.
(Exciting stuff eh?) He suggests, or his reviewer interprets it as implying that the use of forceps and Cesarean deliveries may be influencing human development as these methods permit the survival of larger brained individuals than would otherwise be the case.

Sorry, but imo that's a no-brainer. I'd say the interesting questions are 'how much' influence and 'how fast'.

Of course you're aware that Cesarean deliveries are much more standard part of American culture than they are of European culture?

[daybrown]

Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" shows that there are only 7mtDNA lines in Europe. And history shows a far higher maternal death rate than in other parts of the world. Chinese women were noted for dropping the kid in the ditch next to the rice patty and finishing work before going home with a new baby. I take that with a grain of salt, but there's a truth in it.

Patriarchy is fond of bragging about how heavy their sons were born. Great to think about, unless you are a candidate for pushing one out of your cunt.

The Roman word for 'witch' meant "poisoner", and in this case their mysogeny contributed to the fall of their empire. Gibbon for instance, calculates that when the Romans took over Britain, the population was 12 million. When they gave it back, the population was 4 million.

For a long time, the legions were basically slave traders raiding into Germany and Dacia. I think Archeology has since revealed that a large swathe of territory was abandoned, taken over only by the most warlike to give the Romans as good as they got.

And as the slave trade dwindled, so did the population. In part due to the fact that the witches were also midwives. So, on top of the lead poisoning and malnutrition, they killed off the midwives, and the birth rate fell.

A competent midwife in a village knew how big the babies tended to be, and how big the women were, and took careful measurements. If it seemed like the kid was going to be much over 6 lbs, she'd use ergot to induce labor. She mite loose a few babies doing this, but she wont loose women.

Course, that same ergot has ritual uses for altered states of consciousness that tend to reveal what bullshit scripture is.

[Digit]

Don't know the answer RS, but if large heads equates to large brains equates to greater intelligence then the first world is breeding an advanced race
Lovejoy states that for 'normal' mammalian development, if the women was able to birth the child, the 'correct' gestation period should be about 15 months.
Apparently he made years long study of movement and demonstrated that Australopithcines were more efficient at walking than HSS, but that women's hip structure was modified to accomodate the passage of large heads at the cost of increased wear and tear on hip joints

[Rokcet Scientist]

Don't know the answer RS, but if large heads equates to large brains equates to greater intelligence then the first world is breeding an advanced race

1) Don't confuse NA with Europe here. Practices are very different! In NA Ceasareans are considered a 'normal' way of delivery. A majority of women do it – although they don't actually have a medical need – out of plain fear for the pain of the birthing process. They're standard Sissies!
In Europe it is used for medical clinical emergencies only.

2) HN had a larger head and a larger brain than HSS, Dig. It didn't stop him from going extinct . . .

Lovejoy states that for 'normal' mammalian development, if the women was able to birth the child, the 'correct' gestation period should be about 15 months.

But 15-month pregnancies fail, so Mother Nature – smart as she is – has babies born after 'only' 9 months, when the head will still – just – fit the birth canal.

Apparently he made years long study of movement and demonstrated that Australopithcines were more efficient at walking than HSS, but that women's hip structure was modified to accomodate the passage of large heads at the cost of increased wear and tear on hip joints

Abo's have larger heads than your average HSS?
Remembering HN, if anything, then that is a recepy for extinction!
And it certainly proves – again! – that larger heads and/or brains do not automatically lead to greater intelligence!

[Digit]

HN had a larger head and a larger brain than HSS, Dig. It didn't stop him from going extinct . .

I made the same point in an argument with Marduk. I have also argued repeatedly that there is no proof, that I have seen, that large brains improve survivability in a species.
I suspect that HSN may have thought 'differently' to HSS in the way that Asiatics seem to have a different philosophy to westerners.
Here in the UK Ceasareans are becoming the norm with the quote of 'too posh to push!'.

[Beagle]

Don't know the answer RS, but if large heads equates to large brains equates to greater intelligence then the first world is breeding an advanced race

1) Don't confuse NA with Europe here. Practices are very different! In NA Ceasareans are considered a 'normal' way of delivery. A majority of women do it – although they don't actually have a medical need – out of plain fear for the pain of the birthing process. They're standard Sissies!
In Europe it is used for medical clinical emergencies only.

2) HN had a larger head and a larger brain than HSS, Dig. It didn't stop him from going extinct . . .

Lovejoy states that for 'normal' mammalian development, if the women was able to birth the child, the 'correct' gestation period should be about 15 months.

But 15-month pregnancies fail, so Mother Nature – smart as she is – has babies born after 'only' 9 months, when the head will still – just – fit the birth canal.

Apparently he made years long study of movement and demonstrated that Australopithcines were more efficient at walking than HSS, but that women's hip structure was modified to accomodate the passage of large heads at the cost of increased wear and tear on hip joints

Abo's have larger heads than your average HSS?
Remembering HN, if anything, then that is a recepy for extinction!
And it certainly proves – again! – that larger heads and/or brains do not automatically lead to greater intelligence!

RS, please give us a break. Nothing, and I mean nothing, in this post is remotely correct. Take a little care in what you state as fact, even though it's not archaeology....please.

[Rokcet Scientist]

HN had a larger head and a larger brain than HSS, Dig. It didn't stop him from going extinct . .

I made the same point in an argument with Marduk. I have also argued repeatedly that there is no proof, that I have seen, that large brains improve survivability in a species.

In fact quite the contrary: if large brains prove anything, it's that they are an evolutionary dead-end street.

I suspect that HSN may have thought 'differently' to HSS in the way that Asiatics seem to have a different philosophy to westerners.

You may have a point there.

Here in the UK Ceasareans are becoming the norm with the quote of 'too posh to push!'.

The UK is not part of Oceania for nothing, Dig!

[Beagle]

So much for that request.

[kbs2244]

Has anybody bothered to check to see if Lovejoy was a product of a Cesarean or forceps birth?

It might effect his opinions.

[Beagle]

I don't know KB, but something must have affected him. Caesarian sections have only become commonplace in the last 50 yrs. or so. They are still in the vast minority here in the US.

Infant brain size has not changed one iota in that time. If anything becomes evolutionarily affected in the distant future it will be female pelvic size.

[Digit]

http://evolution-of-man.info/brain.htm

Lovejoy is supported on the pelvic change but I did point out that his reviewer may have made the interpretation.
Caesarian births are moving towards the majority here and 50 yr Beag is two generations at least also the head size is the important part from the point of view of the mother.

[Beagle]

http://evolution-of-man.info/brain.htm

Why did the australopithecines go for at least two million years and evolve in various other ways, but never show a significant increase in brain size? Perhaps survival did not make it necessary to them. But perhaps also an increase in brain size was anatomically difficult. It seems that the two physical differences which we notice between man and other animals - the upright posture and the larger brain - might at first have been not entirely compatible with one another. It may have been precisely his bipedality - or rather her bipedality - which made it difficult for the australopithecine to develop a bigger brain.

The story of brain development is also the story of the development of the pelvis. When the australopithecines adopted the upright posture, the pelvis changed, to allow for the new centre of gravity of the body and for the necessary bone and muscle modifications required for walking vertically on the back legs alone.

But the pelvis is also a girdle through which the infant head must pass. The picture above, taken from the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (M H Day, P88), shows (left) the pelvis of a female chimpanzee, (centre) that of "Lucy" - a fossil australopithecine - and (right) that of a modern woman. In each case, the infant's head is shown emerging at the time of birth. It shows how relatively more difficult it was for the infant australopithecine's head to pass through his mother's pelvic girdle. The change in pelvis shape needed for upright walking, running and self-defence had made it difficult to give birth to a big-headed child.

Lucy's successors (of the new genus Homo) probably evolved two answers to it. One was for the infant to be born at an earlier and more helpless stage of foetal development, when the head was smaller. The other was a modification in the shape of the female pelvis. This modification would have had implications for walking, running, fighting and climbing trees.

Reduced female speed and agility might have meant a greater dependence on the protection of the male. In most other animals, females (whilst often not as aggressive as males) are well able to defend themselves against predators. By contrast, human females have historically tended to depend on male protection at times of physical danger. Perhaps greater brain size may have been balanced by a progressive tendency for the infant to need more protection from the parents and the mother more from the father.

And unlike other animals, hominid mothers (like modern women, but unlike other animals) may now have had difficult births, for which they needed a midwife. Thus they were also more dependent on the older, more experienced females of their group. Perhaps this was a price they had to pay for the size of their brains: but it was also a step in the direction of larger human social groups, in which the skills and experience of older surviving members were valued.

Thanks for copying that url Digit. Here is the entire article. It seems that Lovejoy is talking about the evolution of the female pelvis to accomodate increased head size since the australopithicines. I agree with that.

I don't see anything about Caesarian sections. All I'm saying is that 100 yrs. ago many women died in childbirth, and that's practically unheard of now. Most of that was due to other causes though, like breech birth position and post partum infection. A breech position is often undeliverable and is now treated by C-section. Being unable to deliver the head has rarely been the issue.

Infant head size has not increased in two generations. As for C-section being so commonplace in the UK - I'll see what I can find on that.

[Beagle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarean_section

The World Health Organisation estimates the rate of caesarean sections at between 10% and 15% of all births in developed countries. In 2004, the caesarean rate was about 20% in the United Kingdom. In 2005 the caesarean rate was 30.2% in the United States.[12] During 2001–2002, the Canadian caesarean section rate was 22.5%.[13] In the United States the caesarean rate has risen 46% since 1996.[12]

Here we go Digit. These figures reflect too high an incidence of C-sections. Many Drs. still think that "once a Caesarian, always a Caesarian", which is too bad. Other Drs. tend to hit the panic button too early if the fetal pulse drops. We haven't been able to moniter the fetus for that long. Wiki lists many reasons for the procedure, but too large a head size is very rare, and may be due to a hydrocephalic fetus.

But after reading the article, I feel much more positive toward Lovejoy.

[Digit]

It isn't in there Beag, it's in a publication by John Reader in ref to Australopithicines and their development and refers to forceps and Caesarean deliveries defeating natural selection
According to Lovejoy the situation has reached the point where HSS is only 50% as efficient as A at walking and the scutes of the skull now even slide over each other to make birth possible.
To me, this seems to say that HSS has reached the limit of its development, unless women at least grow larger.
(No images please Min, I haven't got over the shock of the last one yet.