Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Julia D.'s avatar

There are so many natural systems that we barely understand, especially in the field of health and medicine. And there are so many incentives to flatten the models we do have and oversimplify how we intervene in these systems, often causing harm.

For example, we only just confirmed a decade ago that Pitocin, the synthetic hormone that hospitals give almost all birthing mothers to prevent or treat hemorrhage or in higher doses to induce or intensify labor, obstructs mother-baby bonding, causing postpartum depression. Oops!

Evolution spent all this time figuring out how to make the birth process jumpstart maternal instincts and motivation, especially for mammals, and especially for comparatively premature human infants. And then we go and mess up those hormones and make motherhood harder and less fulfilling. Then we wonder why people don't have more kids.

And hospitals probably won't change those protocols, because the non-pharmaceutical ways of boosting the brain's endogenous oxytocin that drives labor, prevents hemorrhage, and causes bonding are expensive or impossible to implement in hospitals. They basically amount to making sure the laboring mother feels at home and constantly supported in person by safe, snuggly, and familiar people, not bothered by unfamiliar places or people, lights, noises, paperwork, or hostility. Those things are what make hospitals operate efficiently, but they're what tank endogenous oxytocin production and labor progress and safety. That's why, in developed countries, and for low-risk mothers, home birth with a licensed midwife is safer than hospital birth. Regulatory capture is why home birth midwifery is not more common in the US.

Of course I appreciate the field of medicine in general, including prenatal ultrasounds, screening tests, Pitocin used to stop hemorrhage when it does occur, etc., all of which home birth midwives also do as a matter of course. High-risk interventions like Pitocin or C-sections are sometimes the best solution, they're just used more often than ideal because we're sabotaging labor earlier in the process.

My point is that some complex natural processes, like labor, are poorly understood, poorly taught (unlike midwives, OBs are surgeons foremost and have typically never witnessed an entire labor without drugs), and very inconvenient to scale for financial efficiency. Birth is my area of expertise, but I'm going to remember Gell-Mann and infer that there are many other such systems that we could inadvertently mess up.

Evolution has figured out some things that we haven't. We can certainly make some improvements - maternal and infant mortality is lower now than it was 10,000 years ago - but we need to always refer back to nature to make sure we're preserving the good as well as we can while preventing the bad. That requires ongoing scientific inquiry and a foundational respect for nature.

Reinout H's avatar

This feels deeply short-sighted and classically techno-optimist. It assumes that technology can indefinitely decouple growth from ecological limits, despite decades of systems research showing that efficiency gains tend to trigger rebound effects and shift pressures rather than remove them. Abundance narratives also flatten complex socio-ecological systems into engineering problems, ignoring feedbacks, material limits, power, and distribution. Technology matters, but without changes in consumption, governance, and underlying growth paradigms, it risks accelerating overshoot rather than delivering sustainability.

78 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?