ByAzk21
Was hat es biologisch für einen Sinn, wenn die grössere Elastizität des Bindegewebes und die effektivere Wehentätigkeit bei 8-17 Jährigen fehlt?
Wieso bekommen Weibchen eigentlich in der Natur ihre Tage in so jungen Jahren und können somit fruchtbar werden? Ist es ein Fehler der Natur oder nur ein Experiment?
(1 votes)
Loading...Hallo, ich nehme die Pille und habe NIE FEHLER gemacht. Ich habe einmal 4 Wochen die Pille durchgenommen, um meine Menstruation auszulassen. Danach habe ich die Pille aber wieder normal genommen. Der Arzt hat mir versichert, dass das Überspringen der Periode kein Einnahmefehler ist. Ich habe zu verschiedenen Zeitpunkten insgesamt 4 Schwangerschaftstests gemacht und alle…
wenn ja welche farbe passt am besten, auch schwarz? soll ja eher schlanker machen
Nein für weniger.
Hallo, hat schon mal jemand eine Überraschungsparty organisiert. Was habt ihr gemacht? Vllt hat jemand auch eine Idee was 23 Jährige Mädels auf ner Party spielen können 🤔
Was kann ich da für Themen benutzen. Sollte schon ein wenig komplizierter Thema als meine Katze sein. Eher so auf dem Niveau von DNA. Wäre super wenn ihr da so eine kleine Aufzählung machen könntet
Menschen haben die Eigenschaft unzählige Emotionen durch Musik zu empfinden was komischerweise nicht bei den meisten Tieren zu beobachten ist. Warum ist das so?
Nature wants young people before being eaten by others or dying of an accident or infection. And young and healthy enough to take care of young people long enough.
Not too long ago you were dead as a person with an average of 30 to 40 years.
8 years, however, is rare, rather 11 – 13 for the first period average. And it’s gonna take a while to play it. This is so early, but also because of our good health care and nutrition. You get faster. It wasn’t like that before and the days came later than today.
But why is it also with 13 medically very dangerous children to bear?
Do you understand what “average” means?
What is average?
People used to be 30 years old. It was normal to get 14 children or was even called late. Biology naturally adapts, but not as fast as human living conditions became better.
I’d say something unprofessional. I am not a biologist
There’s a couple of reasons for me.
Even if it sounds absurd to the outside and looks as if nature had damaged itself, there are some points behind it. Puberty begins at the age of 8 to about 13 years. From the point of view of evolution, one must mention that it was necessary to get pregnant early in order to maintain reproduction. And as strange as it sounds, nature took this risk to prevent human extinction. I couldn’t find anything for this, but in my view it makes sense (just likes me).
The second point would be that by the beginning of puberty, naturally different hormone levels are changed. Estrogen is necessary for typical puberty features such as breast growth. However, estrogen also has the important task of regulating the menstrual cycle. In concrete terms, this now means that the fertility, puberty and the hormone levels are closely related and thus there is the risk of pregnancy when it comes to the “reconstruction” of the entire body.
But why is it medically very dangerous to give birth to children with 13 to 17? The body is usually not so far but the people were at most 30 years old in the early Stone Age? Did they all die directly at 8-17 when they brought children to the world and the child immediately?
I wish I could give you quite accurate figures. However, I can definitely confirm that the newborn mortality was definitely higher by a Viiieeel. Of course, women have often died at birth. Today you can treat a lot. Just to mention a few examples: pregnancy poisoning, pelvic end position, pregnancy diabetes, high blood pressure etc. – all at that time a death sentence. For mother and child.
In short, to give clarity. Around 1800, about 62% of newborns died! If you imagine this for the Stone Age, only the least survived. Historically there are also reports, for example in ancient Rome: “rich” citizens were recommended to bring at least 3 sons to the world to survive a heritage.
I think without this “reading” or natural selection, we would never have done so far as humanity is concerned. And there nature has made the reproduction quite clear about the life of the witnesses.
Here I found something exciting about infant mortality, and I also found the numbers: https://www.geschichtewiki.wien.gv.at/S%C3%A4uglingssterblichkeit#:~:text=Number%20allm%C3%A4hlich%20s%C3%A4 eyepiece,%2016%2C57%20%25%20ab.
Why are they guilty? It’s nothing bad when people get into puberty earlier and the body is more stable than when one becomes fertile as a bone man with 8-11 years, but the body hardly has the strength to do so. As it is with some girls today, is it much better than at the time in the wilderness?
To the first point: Yes, but here is much more about the generality.
Point 2: We have developed so much (medicine, nutrition etc.) that we have adapted the world & nature a bit far to us. And these environmental influences affect when puberty begins.
You don’t think there was a single 11-15 year-old who got pregnant or were fertile? I dare to doubt that.
Why are we guilty and what does it have to do with the puberty or the age of the girls?
The strongest survives. The best features prevail. I have a nice example:
An island with birds. Some birds have a weak beak, the others have a strong one. seeds can be better cracked with the strong beak; So the stronger birds get more food. Meanwhile they multiply and the weak birds have no chance. Thus, the whole is constantly evolving and this constant adaptation holds us almost all alive.
I really like to doubt that. The development of medicine alone has improved so much that deadly diseases can be treated today with a few drugs. And even though you think we’re getting worse, the situation has improved considerably. At that time there were famines and one had to fight a loaf of bread – do you know what I want out? It has improved – the whole lifestyle, less danger.
For this reason, puberty has always slipped forward: the standard of living allows women to bring a child to the world today with 16 even though this would have been unthinkable a century ago.
And you have a really interesting point: why does the age go down, even though the danger is still there?
This is what I think we as a society “school” because our modern life goal is increasingly affecting nature.
Why wouldn’t humanity have done it without this selection?
Why did children get pregnant in nature? Because the life condition was terrible or a struggle or because they had it better than today?
They say that the children come into puberty earlier today, because medicine and food has become better, but they are more stressed and all these are factors. What now? Because we’re stressed today and we’re unhealthy, most of us come to pre-puberty with 8 and are with 14 mature women? Puberty lasts for 4-7 years and with girls it begins between 8-10 years and lasts up to 14 up to 16 years. The decisive reason is, however, as soon as the period can even enter 9 and with 11 it is already safe for many. This means that at the beginning of the period these girls are receptive and can become biologically pregnant. What happens to these children or physically sexually mature 8-11 year old women? Sounds funny, but who can bring children to the world is no child even if society sees it right. In nature there are no more children, mature psyche back or forth.
Not all get their days/rules at the age. This can be very different.
The elderly were not older than 30 or 40, so early care had to be taken for young people.
In some population groups, the girls even get married with 12/13,,,, which is not understandable for us Europeans, but go to the jungle to a natural crowd, e.g. there are the girls very early.
Especially “in the jungle with the natural populations” the girls get their period very late due to the living conditions, often only at 16 or 17…
I can’t imagine. Due to difficult living conditions, they naturally arrive very early in their period. Are there any scientific evidence?
How would you evaluate a “scientific evidence”?
Only a few were over 40 years old. Girls were also pregnant earlier.
A risk yes, but the meaning of beings is to multiply. As fast and as much as possible
I don’t know, but I think it used to be that girls have just gotten their days later but through eating with genetic engineering and so and I also believe through external factors such as stress we often postponed forward
So with 14-16 a girl has grown up. It’s easier to prevent pregnancy. People used to get 30, so they had to start early.
And it comes from microplastics that is in our food. This affects the hormones.
The human being is from the house of Jäger&Sammler, which is hard work and scarce food. This leads to a menarch with about 16/17.
The good nutrition after development of agriculture and, of course, in modern times led to the fact that the period always comes earlier, which was not actually intended – but since this has no significant influence on health and mortality, there is no more reason to select this.
But not with 8-13? In nature, girls were very early in puberty. Man didn’t even get 30.
Of course, people were 30 or 80 at that time. The low average age of other time episodes is due to distorted statistics due to premature death (crisis, disease, famine, lack of hygiene, etc.).
What statement should I understand?
Do you understand this statement?
Yes the average also includes the early death of infants