an interesting and disturbing thought..

[AGierald]

It occured to me the other day... with so many women NOT breastfeeding, i had a terrible thought:

Since i believe in evolution and adaptation, my thought was, if people stop breastfeeding, does that mean our breasts will stop MAKING milk? It just freaks me out to think that if they arent getting used for what they need to be used for, will future generations not even have the option thanks to formula companies?


Im not sure if this has been brought up before, it was just something that occured to me and dh and i discussed it and thought it sounded plausible and very sad!

[Beckula]

Well, not fo thosands and thousands of years at which point I am hoping to God that we will realize that BF is just what we do to feed our Babies (positive) or we will have died out as a species because we wee too busy consuming to notice us killing ourselves (negative). Or scary robots kill us all (ok that was just silly).

[mamakay]

There would have to be some selective advantage to being a woman who doesn't make milk for it to happen. Since lactation doesn't kill, (or have a negative effect on reproduction) the milk would stay, even if it wasn't used.
Breast cancer would almost mean that there was an advantage to having fewer mammary glands (I think) but women are usually past reproductive age when it kills, so that wouldn't do it, either, I don't think.

[2lilsweetfoxes]

I think what will end up happening is that as the daughters of women (truly) unable to breastfeed (and maybe the daughters of their sons) grow up and have children (rather than starving to death in infancy), they will find they had inherited the "deficiency" (for lack of being able to think of a better word atm) and also be unable to breastfeed. So, being able to breastfeed is no longer a requirement of natural selection, so more women as generations pass may be unable.

[boheime]

Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes

I think what will end up happening is that as the daughters of women (truly) unable to breastfeed (and maybe the daughters of their sons) grow up and have children (rather than starving to death in infancy), they will find they had inherited the "deficiency" (for lack of being able to think of a better word atm) and also be unable to breastfeed. So, being able to breastfeed is no longer a requirement of natural selection, so more women as generations pass may be unable.

This is a fear of mine. I am a low supply mom and have to supplement with the help of Lact-Aids. I worry about my daughter (and any future daughters or grandaughters). I have mental fingers crossed hoping that I haven't passed on any faulty genes which cause the condition I have which affects milk supply. I don't want her to go through what I have.

[guestmama9904]

i have also heard a similar theory presented about the way we give birth- as natural birth/vaginal birth becomes taken over by c section birth and drugged birth/ induced birth, will our species start developing physical obstacles to giving birth normally? we already have some obstacles, such as that in our culture we do not squat much, which it is theorized to cause different development in ou pelvic structures, making birth harder. also babies are getting bigger due to better maternal nutrition/ over nutrition, we have better nutrition due to modern agriculture which is relatively new to our species and therefore these bigger babies may be harder to birth naturally as well. a bit off the subject but an interesting discussion!

[Narn]

Neanderthals had an easier time birthing because of different baby heads and being squatter, right? Wonder what their breastfeeding was like. Do you think they had really hairy nipples? Maybe in the future humans will be hairless from wearing hats.

[subrosa]

Originally Posted by 2lilsweetfoxes

I think what will end up happening is that as the daughters of women (truly) unable to breastfeed (and maybe the daughters of their sons) grow up and have children (rather than starving to death in infancy), they will find they had inherited the "deficiency" (for lack of being able to think of a better word atm) and also be unable to breastfeed. So, being able to breastfeed is no longer a requirement of natural selection, so more women as generations pass may be unable.

I think that this has been dealt with in the past, though, by wet nursing and using other mother's milk substitutes (goat's milk, etc.) I don't think that women who aren't capable of making milk (or of making sufficient milk) will necessarily becomae a larger percentage of the population, just because humans as a species have probably been dealing with issues like this for as long as we've existed, KWIM? We are pack animals, after all, barring a situation where resources were too scarce to provide for the infants who couldn't have their own mothers milk,.

[guestmama9904]

the other thing to realize is that (from what data I have studied) the actual percentage of women who physically cannot breastfeed due to some medical problem is less than 3% of all women.

I am not trying to put down low supply moms or make anyone feel like they have failed, I am simply giving this info in the interest of a scientific discussion.

of course there are reasons beyond medical problems that may make breastfeeding difficult to impossible, I am simply showing that our species is pretty well equiped, physically to make breastfeeding work. our societys, however, are failing our species biological norm of being able to breastfeed successfully.

[AGierald]

Originally Posted by arismama!

the other thing to realize is that (from what data I have studied) the actual percentage of women who physically cannot breastfeed due to some medical problem is less than 3% of all women.

I am not trying to put down low supply moms or make anyone feel like they have failed, I am simply giving this info in the interest of a scientific discussion.

of course there are reasons beyond medical problems that may make breastfeeding difficult to impossible, I am simply showing that our species is pretty well equiped, physically to make breastfeeding work. our societys, however, are failing our species biological norm of being able to breastfeed successfully.

i agree with what you're saying, but what i sort of meant was people who CAN but ARENT... does that make sense? I do fully know theres people who cant, and i feel so horrible for them, and PRAY im not one of them, but what about the people who have the ability and dont use it? Are we subjected to a use it or lose it kind of thing?

(by the way, i know this would take many generations to happen, its just a thought i had)


and i think the same thing about natural birth, AND someone mentioned breast cancer--- i think maybe the low breastfeeding rate is also related to the high breast cancer rate... women arent using their breasts the way they are supposed to be used, and therefore, things that should be doing work for childrearing arent doing it.. does that make sense? they're just sitting there, and therefore more prone to invading cells... which is why i think breastfeeding lessens the risk of breast cancer... (although its not, of course the only reason! i know that breast cancer is around regardless, but im just addressing ONE possible factor, ya know?)

[llamalluv]

Originally Posted by AGierald

i agree with what you're saying, but what i sort of meant was people who CAN but ARENT... does that make sense? I do fully know theres people who cant, and i feel so horrible for them, and PRAY im not one of them, but what about the people who have the ability and dont use it? Are we subjected to a use it or lose it kind of thing?

No, because as a prior poster responded, that is not evolutionary theory. It's not a "use it or lose it" kind of thing.

The way that natural selection works in practice is that the environment that a particular species of organism is in will present a challenge, and those that cannot survive that challenge until 'breeding age' will die without passing on their particular traits. And those that CAN survive the challenge won't pass on their genes (and that trait) UNLESS they breed.

Here's a link to the explanation of how Charles Darwin first came to his conclusions about natural selection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

[nikag]

^^

Natural selection 'works' on genes, not behaviors - only those traits that can be passed onto offspring irrespective of human behaviors, morals, or social constructs - those things that are completely unaffected by free will.

Genetic traits are 'selected' for passively - in that the 'selection' that occurs is basically a determination of whether or not a population of individuals with varying genetic composition is still alive after the environment presents a particular challenge - or more importantly, WHO (genetically) is still alive. Those individuals within a population who 'fail' the challenge can not pass on their genetic material to the next generation. But this is only the case if the challenge is life threatening and prevents reproduction or kills the population or individual before reproduction can occur.

So long as a population (or individuals with a similar genetic build within a population) is able to reproduce and does reproduce, (i.e., there is no hindrance to reproduction - like death) some portion of their specific genetic make up will be passed on to the next generation and those traits will be exhibited (either phenotypically or genotypically) in some form (unless they are recessive and "skip a generation").

Only if the children of breastfeeding mothers inextricably died because of breastfeeding or if being genetically able to breastfeed either killed mothers or prevented them from reproducing, would the human population then lose the ability to breastfeed - and it would likely take hundreds of thousands of years to weed out those genes. It's not something we would ever see in our lifetimes, or our children theirs, or their children, or theirs, or theirs, or theirs, or theirs.....

[julie128]

Formula would have no effect on our ability to make milk; however, if formula continues to be used, then those babies who can digest it better and have fewer negative reactions to it will be more likely to reproduce and to produce offspring who are more likely to tolerate formula. Takes many generations, though, and humans don't reproduce that quickly.

[Ruthla]

I don't think that most causes of insufficient milk production are genetic. Just because you needed to supplement is NOT a guarantee that your daughter will have the same problems when it's time to feed your grandchildren.

[wannabe]

Originally Posted by mamakay

There would have to be some selective advantage to being a woman who doesn't make milk for it to happen. Since lactation doesn't kill, (or have a negative effect on reproduction) the milk would stay, even if it wasn't used.
Breast cancer would almost mean that there was an advantage to having fewer mammary glands (I think) but women are usually past reproductive age when it kills, so that wouldn't do it, either, I don't think.

But it costs energy to make the tissue, and make the milk, so you'd be at a disadvantage in a very marginal situation - the balance might be tipped for you to have one fewer child over your lifetime because you weren't well nourished enough to ovulate again quickly after having a baby because you'd wasted kilojoules on breast tissue development. But that's not going to apply to humans who are in a position to buy baby formula and bottles.

No, because as a prior poster responded, that is not evolutionary theory. It's not a "use it or lose it" kind of thing.

The way that natural selection works in practice is that the environment that a particular species of organism is in will present a challenge, and those that cannot survive that challenge until 'breeding age' will die without passing on their particular traits. And those that CAN survive the challenge won't pass on their genes (and that trait) UNLESS they breed.

But the interaction of genes and behaviour can exert selection pressure on genes via learned behaviour. I know that's not what the OP meant, but I can see a mechanism (like the above cost of maintaining breast tissue in a marginal situation).

does that make sense? they're just sitting there, and therefore more prone to invading cells... which is why i think breastfeeding lessens the risk of breast cancer... (although its not, of course the only reason! i know that breast cancer is around regardless, but im just addressing ONE possible factor, ya know?)

The breastfeeding/cancer link is most likely due to oestrogen exposure. Breastfeeding delays ovulation and hence the return of a high oestrogen environment to your body. The lifetime cumulative exposure to oestrogen can increase or decrease your risk of breast cancer. The more time you've spent without ovulating (pregnant or breastfeeding) the lower your risk. And conversely, if you've indergone superovulation and really high oestrogen levels (like in some fertility treatments), it increases your risk.

[llamalluv]

Originally Posted by wannabe

But it costs energy to make the tissue, and make the milk, so you'd be at a disadvantage in a very marginal situation - the balance might be tipped for you to have one fewer child over your lifetime because you weren't well nourished enough to ovulate again quickly after having a baby because you'd wasted kilojoules on breast tissue development. But that's not going to apply to humans who are in a position to buy baby formula and bottles.

We've already exerted control over that, by means of artificial birth control (family planning). By using hormones, condoms, or even old-fashioned "timing" (NFP/FAM) and abstinence, we are limiting the number of offspring we have. Breastfeeding, IMO, plays very little into the fertility of the average human today, especially in the Western world.

[Cuau]

Well an important point is that women in most countries do breastfeed. So even when in the US ther is a lot of women not breastfeeding, that doesn't mean that is the general rule in all the world.

[Zwillingsmama]

I've been thinking of these kinds of things also lately. But more the other way around.

What's going to happen if people continue feeding their babies formula. Just think of all the crap they feed and inject into cows (hormones, antibiotics, the pesticides in the grain they're fed) and then formula is made out of their milk and fed to babies??!