|
Edited on Tue Oct-03-06 03:55 PM by Xithras
Yeah, birth control. Believe it or not, it makes sense too, though the change isn't caused by the BC itself. It's a side effect.
The idea was apparently first developed a few decades ago by a researcher who noticed that BC rates rose almost perfectly in sync with increasing societal wealth, and that they jumped considerably after birth control became widely available. This is a trend that goes all the way back to the 1920's.
The thoery is this: Prior to the advent of birth control, the average woman had as few as 50 periods in their entire lifetimes. How was this possible? Culture and societal norms primarily.
From the beginning of recorded history up until the 1800's, the average woman didn't experience menarche until 15 or 16 years of age. Most girls were then mated off within a year or two at the most (i.e., no more than 24 periods). Along with mating comes sex, of course, and in the age before birth control pregnancy typically followed quickly. After the baby was born, in the age before baby food and formula, the mother would typically spend at least two years breastfeeding the child exclusively, which prevents ovulation in most women. In most mating situations, sex begins occurring once again after the female body has recovered from the trauma of childbirth. Once ovulation begins again, pregnancy typically follows in short order. With child mortality rates at or exceeding 50% for most of human history (in parts of New York City the number was as high as 75% into the late 1800's), people didn't think much about having 8 or 9 children because they understood that only 4 of them were going to survive. It was a societal norm and was simply the way "things were".
Prior to the 1800's, the average person died before they finished out their 40's, and in prehistoric times somebody REACHING 40 would have been considered quite old. Most women died long before reaching menopause, and they typically died while they were still in their childbearing years.
The theory is that many forms of female cancer, including breast and ovarian, are actually caused by the fact that the modern body is maintained in a way that evolution didn't intend it to be used. Evolution designed us to be efficient reproducers, and that's what our bodies are actually intended for. By preventing pregnancies through birth control, we are using our bodies in ways contrary to their evolutionary design. Women's bodies simply weren't designed to deal with the constant hormonal variation associated with regular periods, because from our inception 2+ million years ago up until the early part of the 20th century, women simply didn't HAVE regular periods for any extended length of time. A girl born ten thousand years ago, a thousand years ago, or even 250 years ago would have been looking at somewhere between 50 and 75 periods in her lifetime. A girl born today, with longer lifespans and earlier menarche, is looking at more than 450 periods before menopause (assuming menarche at 12 and menopause at 50, YMMV). The body simply wasn't designed for that.
The paper I was reading didn't offer any solutions, but bemoaned the fact that this possibility was being passed over for research because of political pressure. The pharma companies don't want the potential liability of their products being associated with cancer, and womens groups would scream bloody murder at the notion that some cancers might be caused by not having enough children. Nobody likes the idea, so it doesn't get a lot of research. The problem is that the theory IS scientifically valid (the only thing that should matter), and that most of its supporting arguments withstand challenge very well.
If the theory is valid, it seems to me that the "solution" would be to find a way to totally eliminate ovulation and hormonal fluctuations in the female body. Starting shortly after menarche, eliminate periods entirely until the female is ready to have a child, and eliminate them again afterwards. This would most closely mimic the natural behavior that the human female body was designed for, and I'm sure that many women would welcome the idea.
|