What if Human Reproduction took 3 times longer?

ZealotX wrote:

elizabeth wrote: Lol
There would be less woman willing to have children..
Nine months is more than enougth
And the birth...... oh geez the birth
Nope I for sure wouldnt of had kids.

See? Excellent contribution. I hadn't even considered that angle. Thank you!

As a man... I'm trying to be careful here because a woman's opinion in naturally far more weighty on this subject than my own... but... I think.... based on what I've heard... that 9 month period is also a bonding period that the mother forms with the child. I could also be wrong but I think the longer that period is the more that mother may potentially bond with and be connected to their offspring. I think a lot of women say they will never have kids. My sister said it and now she has two. And if everyone took over 2 years and you didn't even know it could take less time so you didn't have anything to compare it to... would you still feel that way? Isn't that time relative? It only takes dogs and cats 58-68 days to gestate new offspring. Knowing this, would you say "no, 9 months is just too long!" ?

And what if the pot was sweetened and once you got pregnant you were assigned .... not slaves but indentured servants to wait on you hand and foot? I mean I've had a butler suite at a sandals resort and let me tell you... that was almost worth me getting pregnant. I'm kidding of course.

Well from personal experience you would have to factor in the cost of pregnancy. I mean I had monthly scans, doctor appointments because I had depression because of the pregnancy, I couldn't work after a few months. And as a man, how would it affect you? A much longer pregnancy with the mood swings and cravings. Would it affect relationships more leading to seperation. Waiting that long for a baby that what isnt really a baby as we understand it now having been in the womb that much longer. Would they come out walking? How much more would they grow? If its too much then how would we give birth, if it would be natural would women look different to how they do now so that their bodies were able to give birth to a child much larger than one we give birth to now?
Funny ideas and I understand you looking at it from a different perspective but from mine all I can think is blimey, it hurts, like crazy hurt that if we actually remembered clearly would downsize the population trust me haha.

I know I was sick of being pregnant by nine months, couldn't imagine how hard a longer pregnancy would be.
On the plus side servants sound nice, but, who is paying for them? And I would imagine being pregnant for longer means a larger weight gain, so again we would be bigger, as a whole, women. And would they need milk when they were born? Oh my life, haha I breastfed my daughter and that was a bonding experience like no other.. It was also the means of loosing the babyfat. But if the baby was older would they need different substance? Proper food? So I guess we wouldn't need breasts as such right?
Haha this is a very strange conversation
What do you think?

elizabeth wrote: Well from personal experience you would have to factor in the cost of pregnancy. I mean I had monthly scans, doctor appointments because I had depression because of the pregnancy, I couldn't work after a few months. And as a man, how would it affect you? A much longer pregnancy with the mood swings and cravings. Would it affect relationships more leading to separation. Waiting that long for a baby that what isn't really a baby as we understand it now having been in the womb that much longer. Would they come out walking? How much more would they grow? If its too much then how would we give birth, if it would be natural would women look different to how they do now so that their bodies were able to give birth to a child much larger than one we give birth to now?
Funny ideas and I understand you looking at it from a different perspective but from mine all I can think is blimey, it hurts, like crazy hurt that if we actually remembered clearly would downsize the population trust me haha.

I know I was sick of being pregnant by nine months, couldn't imagine how hard a longer pregnancy would be.
On the plus side servants sound nice, but, who is paying for them? And I would imagine being pregnant for longer means a larger weight gain, so again we would be bigger, as a whole, women. And would they need milk when they were born? Oh my life, haha I breastfed my daughter and that was a bonding experience like no other.. It was also the means of loosing the babyfat. But if the baby was older would they need different substance? Proper food? So I guess we wouldn't need breasts as such right?
Haha this is a very strange conversation
What do you think?

I love where your mind went. When I was thinking about the topic I wasn't thinking of it as "extra time"... meaning that the whole process was slower. So the birth would be normal. The baby would be normal size. Everything would be normal. It's just that to get to that point would take 3 times longer. So I don't know. You wouldn't even know you were pregnant for like 6 months and you'd still be small probably the first year. I can't mentally do the calculations for what stage you would be when exactly. But you wouldn't look 9 months pregnant after 9 months and still have to wait longer. So you getting tired and all the weight gain and all that would be mitigated somewhat by the difference in time.

And let's say that because it took longer it was less of a strain/burden on your body. I know that might not make tons of sense logically, but it was basically pulling 1/3 the normal amount of nutrients from you, etc. Would any of this make a difference to your decision to reproduce?

Okay so just growing slower, but normal size..
(I was having fun then imagining what women would look like )
Okay, if I knew it would take longer to have a child, and if everything else was normal, ( natural aging for all I guess) then I would have to consider getting pregnant at a younger age. Especially if I wanted my child to have siblings, ah but having them close in age is sometimes a blessing. There would be at least say a three year gap, pregnancy then birth then getting pregnant again.
It probably wouldnt affect the decision to reproduce more than affect when.
And it would give more time for a stronger foundation between parents, togeather or not, to prepare.
The only downside I could see is if the baby was growing slowly would we be able to see problems and deal with them while the embryo was so fragile? And if the mother was aging naturally, eighteen months is a long time and feelings, circumstances can change so much..
So I can see good and bad in a longer timeframe but I dont think it would affect having a child for most just maybe give some a slimmer timeframe in which to reproduce.
There are many children born now who are unwanted and thinking about a longer pregnancy brings up the question of mothers who drink or use drugs or generally dont take care of themselves. If its a longer timeframe the risks are greater no matter how much more slowly the baby ages.
And if you didnt know you were pregnant for the first six months say, then you could damage the embryo without knowing. Huh,
I think it would make me think more about relations, ha, maybe,
You know what I dont imagine it would create a more responsible world.
We would still be selfish, we would still act as we do now. In my opinion having fewer humans would be easier but wouldn't necessarily mean that we would be more caring or more grateful for each one.
What makes me think this is more, its not that we are selfish or that its easy, throwaway life now. Its the disconnection we have with ourselves and each other.
If we teach our kids that every life is important, no matter how hard or easy it is, that every person has value and we are connected and show them this, passing this on from one generation to another, then we help create a world where we are taking responsibility and solving the problems now.

I don't know how much difference it would really make, not as much as you are suggesting, methinks.

Yes, the "cost" of life may be seen as higher - all the more reason to claim land for your precious children..
Perhaps the wars would have been a third of the size, or happen a third as often, but I suspect it would be on par for the available population at any point in time....

Queen Vic had nine kids, eight of which lived long enough to have kids of their own..

if she had had three, would it have changed the last few hundred years?

in more modern terms - I can only think of one couple in my "circle" who have reliably pushed out kids at a solid rate (7 in 16 years...)
Everyone else I know would not be overly hampered or altered by the longer period.

The main loser in this is the prophylactic industry - once the misso is up the duff, you've got two and half years of carefree savings!