/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15125050
Quality>Quantity.

>>15125050
Twins increase the risk of dying during childbirth and it's not uncommon that one twin dies in the womb, so the mother may have been expending extra resources to support two fetuses when she gets only one baby.

>>15125050
because women are too small and can't safely give birth.
To fix this, women would need to be giantesses.

>>15125095
Doesn't fix nutrient requirements. Back to the drawing board.

>>15125103
what if we built robot women with artificial wombs?

>>15125171
What if we just nuked the human race instead and gave up?

>>15125095
> To fix this, women would need to be giantesses.
Go on

>>15125095
Didn't you get banned

>>15125050
>>15125050
Why don't certain humans mentally evolve past a sexism based understanding of biological reproduction instead of not thinking about how a duality could be implying a slight difference more than a distinctive one.

in other words, think about how a species could have ever reproduced before what may be being imagined as reproductive symbiosis before just assuming it as true, if that was what your conclusion was based off.

>>15125276
apologies if you were using it as a sort of irony, or if my assumption was off, i'm not a super intelligence and barely read anything after i was slightly triggered by "why didn't females evolve differently than they did" which very much seems to imply you either think we different species or once were or were being ironic to make some point to do with the rest of your post. seems just more metaphoric assumption tho, based off the idea of multitasking better being either factual or not (which i have no idea about as i don't study genetics), or maybe a way to describe the inefficiency-efficiency balance of damn near every thinking style, which is probably not so divided as anybody assumes.

>>15125300
i thought you meant multitasking based off twins/triplets etc and how it seems to correlate to the idea of efficiency. maybe i'm projecting a bit but i don't think so.

>>15125050
>>15125079
Why do women evolved to have 2 boobies if they only expect 1 child?

>>15125390
one for the baby, one for the hubby

>>15125394
Only one male per female? Misogynist!

>>15125050
Because human females are too small. Their pelvic canals are too narrow for the size of human heads. Before modern midwifery having twins was practically a death sentence.

>>15125103
Without midwifery, ie with pure unaided birth, the 20% or so higher caloric expenditure was far less than the staggering rate of death for both babies and mother. Before humans created midwifery, humanity was undergoing a painful evolution where only wide hips could reproduce. But once modern medicine was invented, the trend reversed, and more and more C sections are being done every year.

>>15125050
>evolve
Retard moment.

>>15125469
C-sections are primarily performed for the sake of obstetrician convenience. Pelvic dystocia is down to its roots an issue of maternal nutrition during their own childhood and through puberty, likely leading to retarded growth overall, but especially of the pelvis. That and having pregnancies before the hips have had time to fully go through puberty spread.

>>15125505
If its been done for "convenience", you have an almost criminal obstetrician. It is also a myth that C sections are largely done at maternal requests, even the highest estimates in studies done put it at about a fifth of mothers request it. C sections should only be done when there's substantial risk of complications. The effects of of C sections, especially multiple C sections, is well known. Subfertiliy, increased risk of childbirth problems including stillbirth, subsequent problems conceiving, uterine scarring causing future pregnancy problems, etc. And all the risks associated with invasive surgery.

But you are right that the sharp increase in C sections in the past decade is probably more driven by ignorance of the risks than anything.

>>15125390
It's always faster to switch to your secondary than to reload

>>15125544
>If its been done for "convenience", you have an almost criminal obstetrician.
Then the entire obstetrics industry is a criminal enterprise. Because this is the main reason for the rise. It's elective c-sections and artificial inductions driving the increase. Women should almost never be induced with pitocin and yet they are constantly for no medical reason.

>>15125544
Do you understand how much more money is made from a c-section than a vaginal delivery? C-sections can be scheduled during a standard 9-5 day. Women can be easily sold on the idea because of the obsession with vaginal and labial aesthetics, and the desire to not experience the pain of vaginal delivery, potential pelvic floor weakness, complications, poorly done/ripped episiotomy, incontinence, etc. It's not a hard sell. There can be necessary cases, but it's not going to be anywhere near the rates they're at. There's even a push towards inducing birth at 37 weeks instead of doing a full brew and letting it happen naturally at or shortly after 40 weeks.

>>15125544
Depriving a mother of the experience of natural birth is almost as much of a crime as circumcision is. Medicine is obsessed with depriving humans of their most viceral pleasures and experiences, they would ban natural insemination too, if they thought they could get away with it.

>>15125578
Induction with pitocin is a criminal act. Not only does it stunt infant growth, but it can stop mothers from lactating entirely, making them dependent on s o y formula.

>>15125580
The natural birthing process is a risk for women. You have the connection with your child through the natural release of hormones and ability to breastfeed on time, but there are far too many things that can and do go wrong. When those mothers put in an investment with childbirth with a spouse/the father, there is fear that he will stray due to the changes that happen afterwards or no longer be satisfied. It's common enough that women can be easily convinced to turn towards alternatives to help prevent it. It's not just medicine that is obsessed with depriving humans of being humans, it's also modern humanity's depravity towards sexual pleasure over partnership.

>>15125613
>The natural birthing process is a risk for women.
So?

>>15125095
>giantesses
but then men would keep climbing into their wives' vaginas

>>15125173
Seems like our only hope for a better future.

>>15125580
>Depriving a mother of the experience of natural birth
that quite often results in death, and worded from perspective of a guy
>is almost as much of a crime as circumcision is.
somewhat dangerous and maybe deprives of pleasure or increases it, but i'm a guy and have no idea if i'd get more pleasure with the opposite of how my dick is, especially considering the potential complications possible from both. not as great a way to hide your gender as you may have assumed, assuming that was your assumption or motive.
>Medicine is obsessed with depriving humans of their most viceral pleasures and experiences,
wow that's weird, could you expand on this? maybe some extreme examples of pleasure and extreme examples of pain have been dulled somewhat by medicine so as to keep us from chasing extremes that extremely change our thinking processes and stop us from even understanding each others thinking styles(especially if they also lead to violent and impulsive behaviours)
>they would ban natural insemination too, if they thought they could get away with it.
who would? would they, though? why's that? because they hate pleasure? because they hate pain? because they hate men or females or something in between? who were you referring to again? aren't you just an MRA who is kinda good at disguising your attempts at trolling?

>>15125808
>that quite often results in death
No it doesn't, but no one claims that a woman who's in actual danger should be denied a C-section, so your reaction is just another thought-terminating cliche.

>who would?
Your ruling class.

>would they, though?
Yes.

>why's that?
Because they want to dehumanize and control the population to the greatest extent possible.

>>15125613
Risks are thrills

>>15125050
Scientists almost cracked this problem 80 years ago, but the woke mob cancelled the research

>>15125390
Dogs have 10 nipples, that doesn't mean they're meant to pump out 10 puppies every single time, usually only half of that.

>>15125050
They will. Sometime towards the end of this year, we're going to start genetically modifying humans to make women tall, thick, and super fecund, who birth small litters. Men will be modified to be small, lean, and super athletic.

>>15125095
This anon understands.

>>15125103
It does solve it. Larger females hold more energy and nutrients in their larger body, which is one of the bases' of fecundity selection. Large women already have a higher probability of multiple births

We are literally only a few months away from becoming the giant female small male master race.

>>15125050
>females
You mean birth givers nazi chud. Men can give birth bigot

>>15125050
and why exactly should quantity of reproduction be efficient?

>>15125050
Females don't care about breeding anymore. That's stupid.

>>15127051
>Female agency
Lol lmao

>>15126592

>>15125390
To imitate asses

>>15125390
Why do you have 2 kidneys when you only need one?

>>15125469
> But once modern medicine was invented, the trend reversed, and more and more C sections are being done every year
You are retarded.

>>15128393
He's right

>>15125050
.

>>15128994

>>15128989
He's right that more c-sections are being done, but the invention of the c-section has no, nor will ever have, any influence on the width of womens hips. The idea that humans are evolving smaller hipsizes because of it is laughable to anyone but the dumbest of motherfuckers.

>>15129458
It doesn't matter as we are going to start genetically modifying women to be tall and have big hips and men to be small by the end of the year anyway. C sections aren't going to be needed at all