Researchers sure do end up doing all kinds of researches, and they don't always start out doing the same ones. Anyway, a Dr Fiona Mathews from the University of Exeter has shown a link between a women's level of calorie intake a few weeks before, and a couple of few weeks after, conception, and the sex of the baby born. Higher calorie intake has been linked to boys being born, and dieting has been given as a probable cause of the fall in male birth rates in industrialised (read developed) countries. The inverse could be true too then, with malnourishment leading to more girls being born in poorer countries, where the traditional emphasis and desire is usually for a male child anyway, making a sort of vicious circle. So if you are looking for a baby boy, force feed the mother. For a girl, oh well, save on the food bills!
Other than the implications on sex ratios, of at least as much importance is the impact on the scientific understanding of the process of conception and its link to sex determination. Till now, we always thought that the sex of the foetus was decided by whichever chromosome, X or Y, from the sperm fused with the ovarian egg. In effect, the father decided (though completely beyond his own control) the sex of the baby the mother would bear. But now, for the first time, there is evidence to show that somehow, the mother influences it too, without having to do anything with the 23rd set of chromosomes. Science always does leap ahead of itself, doesn't it?
To steer this in a slightly controversial territory, as I am wanton to. Thinking in terms of biological evolution, or rather, the process of natural selection, this certainly could speak volumes. Healthier food = boy, not so healthy food = girl. You can't argue with the course of nature now, can you? And yet, and yet, I am a proponent of egalitarianism, but now, with a heightened dislike for those who had rather use the label of feminist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
flip it. harsher circumstances...tougher environment...only girls can hack it :p so what's mother nature saying then?
"mother" nature doesn't say much at all, unless we want to hear something, in which case, we hear what we want.
It doesn't really come as a surprise to me, this piece of news, since it's clear for all us to see that we women generally are shorter, weigh less and even require less calories in a day to get by (a whole load less if we dont want to simply get by but live it up on mag covers and centrefolds...ahem...). What does amaze me though is how food can determine the development of sex organs!!! I mean doesnt there seem something amiss in all of this somewhere??? How does the foetus know what to build on? How does it know if the quantity of food one day is going to be more or equal the next day? what if the food supply goes less? then will the fetus stop construction of the dick and start again on a twat coz it requires less brick and mortar so to speak? i dont get it! and does it also then mean that food intake also perhaps determines personality traits and skills? that just throws years of work on genetics down the shit hole!!! hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!
sex organs come quite late in the development of the foetus, so perhaps there is no direct link between them and the food intake as such... anyway, the sort of confusion you have is exactly what i was trying to point out with the bit about the scientific implications of this research. we humans always like to think we know a lot more than we actually do.
and i really have no clue about the link of food with personality traits (though if you go by the 'wisdom' of the ancients, there indeed to exist rather strong links, and not just during conception but even in adult life).
Post a Comment