Most traits are heritable. Other than savage accidents to a woman, or a terrible disease, there are probably no heritable reasons she cannot produce milk for her baby. Imagine backwards in time to such a woman, particularly before the evolutionarily recent invention of dairy farming: Her line died out.
This is as likely as men without testes.
I imagine that many people have friends who have been told that they have no milk.
I imagine it also may be irksome to some to have me -- a man -- setting himself up as an 'expert' on breastfeeding.
UPDATE (response to comments):
RG,
Sad to say, in prehistoric times you and your baby would have died. You're both here because of C-sections and formula.
Cows, goats and other lactating mammals imply animal husbandry, which as I pointed out, is evolutionarily recent. Probably the first such instance was dairy farming.
The other-women-helping idea is VERY compelling, and I was almost convinced.
BUT it requires the proximity of another lactating woman, continuous from that moment forward down through time to carry the genes forward if they should ever result in a phenotype that does not produce enough milk. Even if we assume short lifespans (hence most people of breeding age), a hierarchical society, and near-constant pregnancy or lactation, I think this requires a population density from urbanization. A few isolated hunter-gatherers would likely not be able to locate that other lactating woman.
The first cites appeared even after diary farming. And if the other-woman explanation is the answer, we would expect to see a greater incidence of milk lack among women of Mesopotamian heritage.
UPDATE II:
> ...you know that genes can pass latently from one generation to the next.
That's why I said "it requires the proximity of another lactating woman, continuous from that moment forward down through time to carry the genes forward if they should ever result in a phenotype that does not produce enough milk."
> but it doesn't make any sense to say that it should be entirely gone by now.
Never said that. Said "...there are probably no heritable reasons she cannot produce milk for her baby. Imagine backwards in time to such a woman, particularly before the evolutionarily recent invention of dairy farming: Her line died out.
This is as likely as men without testes."
> if it should be gone, there are many others still in existence that "should" be gone as well.
Didn't say it should be gone, but can you name one of those many others?
> Secondly, I'd like some references on your hunter/gatherer info.
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
> ...early humans had to have contact with others for survival.
Of course. But how many would be lactating women?
> I would contend that most women were either pregnant or lactating during their reproductive years...
The link I provided contends that this was the case for farmers, not hunter-gatherers.
> I do not think that "finding that other lactating woman" would be that difficult.
I see.
> In fact, I grew up in Appalachia. My ancestors were all farmers, and they had many hundreds of acres to themselves.
You are less than 30. Do you refer to your ancestors before or after machine farming? By 'themselves' do you mean per person, or per clan?
> ..and ended up giving his newborn to her instead.
She had cows?
>...lack of breastmilk could be a condition that is brought on by modern lifestyles rather than a hereditary trait that has been passed down through the millenia.
Which in no way would oppose my view that there are probably no heritable reasons she cannot produce milk for her baby.
>...I would expect that a human mother would go through extraodinary measures to keep her child alive.
Agreed.
> Even in prehistoric times there were still small groups of people, even in groups of 6 or more, so it is possible that more than one woman was lactating at the time.
In your example of six, assume one is a man and three are women, two of whom have one child. One woman just gave birth. The other two women wait four years between children, per the linked article. So the question becomes: How long do hunter-gatherers breastfeed children? I'm going to guess that it was much longer than moderns or early farmers. Assume that both mothers in the example were still breastfeeding their 4-year-olds. It works! But add more men, more children, or elders, and you still must find that other lactating woman.
> I would think that a baby would be more likely to die from disease or harsh temperatures rather than a non-lactating mother though.
Agreed. I think NL is vanishingly rare.
Michael.
1. When I wrote "the evolutionarily recent invention of dairy farming" you thought I meant this practice was EVOLVED? lmao,ay,nwy
But if your environmental hypothesis has merit, the effect should be more pronounced in older mothers and we can examine this by asking how many young mothers have 'no milk.'
This is as likely as men without testes.
I imagine that many people have friends who have been told that they have no milk.
I imagine it also may be irksome to some to have me -- a man -- setting himself up as an 'expert' on breastfeeding.
UPDATE (response to comments):
RG,
Sad to say, in prehistoric times you and your baby would have died. You're both here because of C-sections and formula.
Cows, goats and other lactating mammals imply animal husbandry, which as I pointed out, is evolutionarily recent. Probably the first such instance was dairy farming.
The other-women-helping idea is VERY compelling, and I was almost convinced.
BUT it requires the proximity of another lactating woman, continuous from that moment forward down through time to carry the genes forward if they should ever result in a phenotype that does not produce enough milk. Even if we assume short lifespans (hence most people of breeding age), a hierarchical society, and near-constant pregnancy or lactation, I think this requires a population density from urbanization. A few isolated hunter-gatherers would likely not be able to locate that other lactating woman.
The first cites appeared even after diary farming. And if the other-woman explanation is the answer, we would expect to see a greater incidence of milk lack among women of Mesopotamian heritage.
UPDATE II:
> ...you know that genes can pass latently from one generation to the next.
That's why I said "it requires the proximity of another lactating woman, continuous from that moment forward down through time to carry the genes forward if they should ever result in a phenotype that does not produce enough milk."
> but it doesn't make any sense to say that it should be entirely gone by now.
Never said that. Said "...there are probably no heritable reasons she cannot produce milk for her baby. Imagine backwards in time to such a woman, particularly before the evolutionarily recent invention of dairy farming: Her line died out.
This is as likely as men without testes."
> if it should be gone, there are many others still in existence that "should" be gone as well.
Didn't say it should be gone, but can you name one of those many others?
> Secondly, I'd like some references on your hunter/gatherer info.
http://www.agron.iastate.edu/courses/agron342/diamondmistake.html
> ...early humans had to have contact with others for survival.
Of course. But how many would be lactating women?
> I would contend that most women were either pregnant or lactating during their reproductive years...
The link I provided contends that this was the case for farmers, not hunter-gatherers.
> I do not think that "finding that other lactating woman" would be that difficult.
I see.
> In fact, I grew up in Appalachia. My ancestors were all farmers, and they had many hundreds of acres to themselves.
You are less than 30. Do you refer to your ancestors before or after machine farming? By 'themselves' do you mean per person, or per clan?
> ..and ended up giving his newborn to her instead.
She had cows?
>...lack of breastmilk could be a condition that is brought on by modern lifestyles rather than a hereditary trait that has been passed down through the millenia.
Which in no way would oppose my view that there are probably no heritable reasons she cannot produce milk for her baby.
>...I would expect that a human mother would go through extraodinary measures to keep her child alive.
Agreed.
> Even in prehistoric times there were still small groups of people, even in groups of 6 or more, so it is possible that more than one woman was lactating at the time.
In your example of six, assume one is a man and three are women, two of whom have one child. One woman just gave birth. The other two women wait four years between children, per the linked article. So the question becomes: How long do hunter-gatherers breastfeed children? I'm going to guess that it was much longer than moderns or early farmers. Assume that both mothers in the example were still breastfeeding their 4-year-olds. It works! But add more men, more children, or elders, and you still must find that other lactating woman.
> I would think that a baby would be more likely to die from disease or harsh temperatures rather than a non-lactating mother though.
Agreed. I think NL is vanishingly rare.
Michael.
1. When I wrote "the evolutionarily recent invention of dairy farming" you thought I meant this practice was EVOLVED? lmao,ay,nwy
But if your environmental hypothesis has merit, the effect should be more pronounced in older mothers and we can examine this by asking how many young mothers have 'no milk.'
posted by brainhell at 9:20 AM
<< Home