Pregnancy - Why It Still Takes Nine Months To Have A Baby
Evolution is the process of natural development.
Whether an animal or a car, we are permanently trying to improve on the previous model.
Most progress is gradual, interrupted once in a while by a major breakthrough, like walking on two legs or ABS brakes.
So how is it that the human race, which is clearly top of the food chain, still needs the best part of a year when having a baby? Especially when you consider that we usually only produce one, rather than a litter, let alone eggs by the hundreds.
Haven't we advanced sufficiently by the 21st century to be able to cut this down to less than six months? Evidently we have not, which raises the question, why not? It would be easy to put the blame on the women.
Pregnancy is their job after all.
But seeing as they got this all-important role because the men couldn't be trusted with it, we're hardly in a position to point the finger.
So what's the answer? There can really only be one logical conclusion.
Pregnancy and childbirth take nine months because that's how long people need to choose a name.
Let's face it.
Other species of animals get the birth process over with a lot quicker because they don't even bother, unless they're a Disney character.
Our history has shown us that it can take a long time to come up with a sensible name, so a baby might as well stay in the womb until we do.
In fact, there are many examples that suggest nine months still isn't long enough and we need to extend it to a year.
Just look at all the children inventively called Junior, or Bob Smith III.
It's an admission that after three-quarters of a year, that's the best they could manage.
The first hurdle is relatives.
This is particularly true for younger parents, who tend to have more of them alive, all of whom want to be immortalized by their grandchild inheriting their name.
So unless you're having quadruplets, you've got a problem.
You can't even get away with giving your child all four names, because only one can come first and top billing counts for everything.
Next is the problem of the actual names grandparents tend to have.
It seems children's names were a low priority when faced with the industrial revolution and the odd World War.
Who wants to end up calling their child Algernon or Gertrude? The next problem is your wife's side of the family.
Whether or not a woman took her husband's name in matrimony, she will probably want her family name to survive, so it becomes a child's middle name, even if it isn't one at all.
Just ask Mary Carbunkle Jones.
The only exception is if these people are extremely rich.
If calling your daughter Ethelred Stinkpants Smith puts her to the top of the inheritance heap, then so be it.
Next comes the issue of pets.
Not naming them, as that's easy and they don't care anyway.
The only rule of thumb is to remember that you may be in the park one day shouting at your dog, so names like "Fatty" and "Loser" are not good choices.
The issue is that you can't name your child after a pet.
You may like the name Max, but if an unclehada Doberman called Max, it's just not going to happen.
Charlie is a good choice for either gender -- except if someone had a cat of the same designation that got run over.
It's as if by choosing that name, you're condemning your child to a fate of jumping out of a window, chasing a bird and getting hit by a truck.
If anything, choosing a name should be a lot easier now.
These days, almost anything is acceptable.
If you can't find an actual name you like, then how about a state, a country or a continent? Even a food-group will do.
But despite the infinite choice, it's amazing how many parents mess up.
They don't think how a child's name can be changed, shortened or generally twisted into something that will scar their psyche for life.
How hard was school for the likes of Jeremy Attric, Philip Ness and Frank Ukwit? Who knows, perhaps if he hadn't been called Adolf, things would have been different.
So when that stick turns blue, you'd better start thinking about it.
You've only got nine months to go.
Whether an animal or a car, we are permanently trying to improve on the previous model.
Most progress is gradual, interrupted once in a while by a major breakthrough, like walking on two legs or ABS brakes.
So how is it that the human race, which is clearly top of the food chain, still needs the best part of a year when having a baby? Especially when you consider that we usually only produce one, rather than a litter, let alone eggs by the hundreds.
Haven't we advanced sufficiently by the 21st century to be able to cut this down to less than six months? Evidently we have not, which raises the question, why not? It would be easy to put the blame on the women.
Pregnancy is their job after all.
But seeing as they got this all-important role because the men couldn't be trusted with it, we're hardly in a position to point the finger.
So what's the answer? There can really only be one logical conclusion.
Pregnancy and childbirth take nine months because that's how long people need to choose a name.
Let's face it.
Other species of animals get the birth process over with a lot quicker because they don't even bother, unless they're a Disney character.
Our history has shown us that it can take a long time to come up with a sensible name, so a baby might as well stay in the womb until we do.
In fact, there are many examples that suggest nine months still isn't long enough and we need to extend it to a year.
Just look at all the children inventively called Junior, or Bob Smith III.
It's an admission that after three-quarters of a year, that's the best they could manage.
The first hurdle is relatives.
This is particularly true for younger parents, who tend to have more of them alive, all of whom want to be immortalized by their grandchild inheriting their name.
So unless you're having quadruplets, you've got a problem.
You can't even get away with giving your child all four names, because only one can come first and top billing counts for everything.
Next is the problem of the actual names grandparents tend to have.
It seems children's names were a low priority when faced with the industrial revolution and the odd World War.
Who wants to end up calling their child Algernon or Gertrude? The next problem is your wife's side of the family.
Whether or not a woman took her husband's name in matrimony, she will probably want her family name to survive, so it becomes a child's middle name, even if it isn't one at all.
Just ask Mary Carbunkle Jones.
The only exception is if these people are extremely rich.
If calling your daughter Ethelred Stinkpants Smith puts her to the top of the inheritance heap, then so be it.
Next comes the issue of pets.
Not naming them, as that's easy and they don't care anyway.
The only rule of thumb is to remember that you may be in the park one day shouting at your dog, so names like "Fatty" and "Loser" are not good choices.
The issue is that you can't name your child after a pet.
You may like the name Max, but if an unclehada Doberman called Max, it's just not going to happen.
Charlie is a good choice for either gender -- except if someone had a cat of the same designation that got run over.
It's as if by choosing that name, you're condemning your child to a fate of jumping out of a window, chasing a bird and getting hit by a truck.
If anything, choosing a name should be a lot easier now.
These days, almost anything is acceptable.
If you can't find an actual name you like, then how about a state, a country or a continent? Even a food-group will do.
But despite the infinite choice, it's amazing how many parents mess up.
They don't think how a child's name can be changed, shortened or generally twisted into something that will scar their psyche for life.
How hard was school for the likes of Jeremy Attric, Philip Ness and Frank Ukwit? Who knows, perhaps if he hadn't been called Adolf, things would have been different.
So when that stick turns blue, you'd better start thinking about it.
You've only got nine months to go.
