Mother Nature: A History of Mothers, Infants, and Natural Selection, by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.

I found this nice weighty tome while purusing Goodwill a month or so back.  I had no idea when I picked it up what a fascinating read it would be.  I can't even begin to put all my thoughts about this book into just one entry.

Now, this book is written from a fairly feminist viewpoint, and, obviously, from an evolutionary one.  Nevertheless....

I found it to do a pretty good job of stating what is, rather than what one person feels should be.  And then presents some hypotheses on what all of it might mean.  The author does an incredibly good job of handling topics as usually un-touched as infanticide, the sensuality of breastfeeding, and the community-sanctioned "pruning" off of no-longer-useful elderly women. 

So...natural selection.  I'm ashamed to admit, before reading this book, I didn't even really have a clear idea what it actually is. Now, being a good christian (and a mormon one at that..;-)), I am supposed to *not* believe in evolution.  Natural selection is usually associated with evolution.  But....well, perhaps I will just state what I *do* believe.

I believe that God created Adam and Eve.  What they were like, genetically....I don't know.  And what has happened to the human gene pool between then and now.....I believe a lot has happened.  There's that scripture talking about the sons of God marrying (and breeding with) the daughters of men.  What exactly does that mean? We don't know.  We do know that perverted people in the past (and present, I suppose, although I really don't care to think about it) have practiced ***********.  If there were creatures back in the days that were strikingly human-like, but not human in the sense of direct, unpoluted descendants of the people that God created, I don't think it unlikely that there could have been breeding going on.  Polute the gene pool of the human race.  Evolution.  It's all tied in. 

Natural selection....that's easy, though.  Doesn't require any sticky theological problems to be solved.   Traits that lead to babies living will be selected for.  Cuteness, for one.  Be cute enough that your mom will take care of you, and you win the contest of natural selection.  What is really amazing to think about, though, is all the babies that did not win that contest. 

We're having a rash of autism in our country.  Is this a trait that's being selected for?  I wonder...

If, as I suspect, my father has asperger's.....you would think that having a disease like that would make a person less likely to reproduce.  Especially given the classic symptom of poor social skills.  But, reproduce he did....7 living offspring.  One of which is my sister, who I also believe to have aspergers.  And reproduce she did...3 living children.  I believe her aspergers has made her more likely to reproduce, in that it has made her easier to be taken advantage of.  However, that's only half of it...the definition of success, in the sense of natural selection, is reproducing offspring that go on to reproduce themselves.  Why have these people in my family been able to actually raise their offspring.  In the case of my father.....his aspergers came with a brilliant mind, which made him able to provide financially.  In the case of my sister....government assistance.  Not sure about my thoughts on that one.

I myself have two children who are labeled by some as "special needs".  They have sensory processing dysfunction.  What will the implications of this be in their lives?  What does it mean to me, in terms of natural selection, and personal responsibility?

Topics for future blogging...