• Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Here’s your correlation.

    And you might want to double check that “don’t use most of our brains” part

    Also, I never mentioned intelligence, that was all you.

    I’ll break it down:

    Before c-sections:

    1. Head size is genetic

    2. Some babies have heads too large for birth

    3. Those babies die, and don’t pass on their genes

    Add c-section technology:

    1. Head size is genetic

    2. Some babies have heads too large for birth

    3. Those babies get c-sections and live

    4. Big head babies pass on their big head genes to the next generation

    • mateomaui@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Your add-on breakdown wasn’t necessary, you’re not informing me of anything, I already provided the relevant info in other replies.

      You didn’t mention intelligence, but that’s the only logical conclusion to draw from suggesting larger brains in our current population is an advantage or important, or “means nothing”/anything.

      If you want to get on the eugenics train, Elon is available for discussion.

      • Zoboomafoo@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        You’re putting words in my mouth, I’m only talking about the Homo genus’s increase in brain size due to evolution, and how c-sections will affect that over time

        I’m not commenting on intelligence variation in Homo sapiens

        • mateomaui@reddthat.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          And plenty of people smarter than you have debunked the notion that the size of the birth canal historically was significant to the size of brains, since most children experience most of their size increase after being born. That more children are saved via c-sections because they’re larger from earlier development or because they’re just relatively larger than their mother isn’t statistically significant for brain size or the practical results of that increase.

          This has been covered in other replies and it’s obvious you’re being obtuse about it, so I’m ending the conversation from my end here. Enjoy arguing with someone else about it.