>
The development of
>speech may have been an important factor in increasing brain size *in
>general*, but the massive increases in temporal and frontal lobes in
>particular may be due not so much to specific selective pressures for
>the functions they perform, as it is due to developmental programs which
>control the relative sizes of *all* brain regions. A small re-write of
>your last sentence should avoid this potential confusion.
thanks for the imput.
>> In the global scheme of things, the integrity of pelvic floor over
>> time is after all not all that important. Nature couldn't care less if
>> your bottom fell out at age 50. The most important biological
>> functions ensuring the survival of our species (reproduction) have
>> long been completed at this age.
>
>
>You want to be careful making this claim. Healthy, active grandparents
>can have a profound influence on the survival and reproductive success
>of their grandchildren.
>
I totally agree. However this paragraph should be seen in the context of
the main message of the manuscript.
that is that "natural childbirth" has negative consequenses to the future
health and quality of life of women.
The main message is that the insidence of pelvic floor damage is terribly
high, with the negative consequences (usually) only visible after the
reproductive age. A related theme is that since the life expectancy has
increased so much and the fecundity rate has dropped to unprecedented
levels, coupled with the increasingly active lives of women, this negative
effect on quality of life of one or two vaginal births is more important
than ever before in history. I realize the wording is provocative (which
was my intention), so I will reconsider the exact wording.
>================================