Let’s see. How to understand?

We might assume that Homo sapiens in fact is NOT uniquely disconnected from the billions of years of selection which resulted in our DNA being almost indistinguishable from that of the rest of living things, and resulted in our morphology, physiology, behavior, etc. being congruent and linked in a billion-year-chain of R&D to our ancestors and extant species, such species empirically observed to be subject to various and fascinating mating system and life history (e.g. age at reproductive maturity) adaptations which have allowed them to adjust to environmental conditions and survive. We might try to understand under that arbitrary framework.

OR

We might dismiss all of the above and instead fund developmentally delayed Ph.D.s with multi-million dollar grants for studies designed to be inconclusive but which will soothe the public’s and media’s need to understand every fracking otherwise biologically explainable phenomenon in terms of a virus, faulty gene, yellow # 82, or contagion (like obesity! I caught it from my friend.)

We might also dismiss as coincidence the facts that a) increasingly early age of reproductive maturity is occurring in particular human populations experiencing relatively stressful and lethal environments, b) that obesity is an indicator of anxiety (i.e. fear), c) loss of an attachment figure (or protective male in the primary support group) would act as reliable cue to lethality or insecurity of a particular environment, and d) that in the natural world this is exactly what we see – populations adjusting reproductive output to lethality of environments, i.e. to lack of fit.

Why does everything have to be so damn confusing!

Me? I’m betting on thimerisol. I say we fund some research at Leading Medical Research Institutes.

If it were found that there are, in fact, more polar bears now than at some time in the past, then this fact would support the claims of Mr. Dyson, Mr. Lomborg and others that despite global warming, the bears are not imperiled or are actually doing better. Right? Actually no, unless only adult bears are counted and cubs are excluded.

Here’s why. Animal studies show that across populations, environments and time, populations experiencing higher mortality rates and correspondingly relatively lethal environments adjust reproductive output to compensate for greater rate of loss of individuals from the population, and to generate genetic variation in the face of lack of fit. Naturally. Without such increased production of offspring, the population would eventually die out.

Bottom line: in animal populations increasingly lethal environments lead to higher mortality rates, which lead to adjustments in reproductive output, which leads to population structures dominated by relatively large numbers of juveniles, relatively fewer adults, and OFTEN ACTUALLY GREATER NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS OVERALL, unless only adults are counted. If we based our measure of “how well population X is doing” on counts of individuals including new offspring, we are at risk of conflating positive health of the population with higher stress and mortality rates. Intuitively and factually, fitness or health in a population is inversely and essentially related to mortality rate or directly to health of adults, and best measured that way.

Does it matter? A population dominated by juveniles is a more vulnerable population because a) juveniles are pre-reproductive, b) they are more vulnerable to environmental and “global” stressors than adults and c) (in a species characterized by parental care) they are demanding of attentional and material resources from the remaining adults, resources which otherwise would be directed toward adult survival.

Imperfect analogy: epidermal tissue is a homeostasis of new cells produced at a rate to compensate for cells lost to abrasion, etc. A section of epidermis with an active malignancy would provide a relatively higher count of cells, but we would hesitate to designate this area of epidermis “healthier” or “doing better”.

Warning: I would never recommend trusting your own sense of what is logical, empirical or “seems right” on these important issues. Always seek the advice of an expert, generally as designated “Professor” by an American Educational Institution, or otherwise recognized as an Authority on the subject. Perhaps a renowned Physicist, or Leading Economist, or Faculty from your local University’s Extension Service.

is the new Havrilesky ;) Straight up.

What could be finer than your favorite TV critic framing the existential dilemma, “between secure but trapped and free but lost” in terms of Red Bull and saltines for your offspring? Construct and live an untrapped authentic existence? No thanks, I’ll sacrifice Self for the Procreation Program please.

Nothing could be finer. Unless maybe she got bored with being comfortably stuck, always falling short in that dialectic, and got out, falling up somehow.

A female who has a close relationship with a mother-in-law typically presents with some combination of 1) a need to maintain or rework a failed differentiation from her own mother, 2) fearfulness preventing her from deviating from the expectations of her husband, culture, church, etc. and from choosing her own relationships and/or 3) a displaced need to get emotionally what is blocked from her by her husband. Each represents the underlying pathology of family and marriage.

In any case, she needs very much to begin movement toward adulthood.