Evolution is the procedure of natural development. Whether a dog or even a car, we are permanently trying to boost on the prior model. Most progress is gradual, interrupted once in some time by way of a major breakthrough, like walking on two legs or ABS brakes.
So just how is it that the human race, which is obviously the top of food chain, still needs the very best element of annually when expecting? Especially considering that we usually only produce one, rather than a litter, not to mention eggs by the hundreds. Haven’t we advanced sufficiently by the 21st century to manage to cut this down seriously to less than six months?
Evidently we have not, which raises the question, why not? It would be easy to put the blame on the women. Pregnancy is their job after all. But since they got this all-important role because the men couldn’t be trusted with it, we’re hardly ready to point the finger.
So what’s the answer? There really can only be one logical conclusion. Pregnancy and childbirth take nine months because that’s how long people need to decide on a name. Let’s face it. Other species of animals get the birth process over with much faster because they don’t really even bother, unless they’re a Disney character.
Our history shows us that it will take quite a while to produce a sensible name, so an infant may as well stay static in the womb until we do. In reality, there are lots of examples that suggest nine months still isn’t long enough and we need to extend it to a year. Just look at all the kids inventively called Junior, or Bob Smith III. It’s an admission that if three-quarters of annually, that’s the best they could manage.
The first hurdle is relatives. This is particularly true for younger parents, who tend to have more of these alive, all whom wish to be immortalized by their grandchild inheriting their name. So unless you’re having quadruplets, you’ve got an issue حوامل. You can’t even break free with giving your child all four names, because only you can come first and top billing counts for everything. Next is the problem of the particular names grandparents often have. This indicates children’s names were a low priority when confronted with the industrial revolution and the odd World War. Who wants to wind up calling their child Algernon or Gertrude?
The following problem is your wife’s side of the family. Whether or not a lady took her husband’s name in matrimony, she will most likely want her family name to survive, so it becomes a child’s middle name, even when it isn’t one at all. Just ask Mary Carbunkle Jones.
The only exception is if this type of person extremely rich. If calling your daughter Ethelred Stinkpants Smith puts her to the the top of inheritance heap, then so be it.
Next comes the issue of pets. Not naming them, as that’s easy and they don’t really care anyway. The only guideline is to keep in mind that you might be in the park 1 day shouting at your pet, so names like “Fatty” and “Loser” are not good choices.
The problem is that you can’t name your child following a pet. You might such as the name Max, but if an uncle had a Doberman called Max, it’s just not likely to happen. Charlie is a great choice for either gender — except if someone had a cat of the exact same designation that got run over. It’s as if by choosing that name, you’re condemning your child to a fate of jumping out of a window, chasing a bird and getting hit by way of a truck.
If anything, choosing a name should be much easier now. Today, most situations is acceptable. In the event that you can’t find a real name you prefer, then how about a situation, a country or even a continent? Even a food-group will do. But despite the infinite choice, it’s amazing just how many parents mess up. They don’t really think how a child’s name can be changed, shortened or generally twisted into something that’ll scar their psyche for life. How hard was school for the kind of Jeremy Attric, Philip Ness and Frank Ukwit? Who knows, perhaps if he hadn’t been called Adolf, things would have been different.