The basic premise from which Missy and I approach parenting is that a baby is a pre-culture, human animal whose health depends on getting their physiological needs satisfied. The responsibility of parents (or more generally, a baby's caretakers) is to understand those needs and help the baby satisfy them. Maximizing a baby's health maximizes its human potential.

Recognizing needs independent of culture is difficult. We see through culture-colored glasses. Perhaps the clearest view of baby physiological needs comes from studying human biology, anthropology, "primitive" people, other primate species, and newborns. These subjects are less influenced by contemporary culture. Evolution does not produce species that cannot care for their dependent offspring. Such a species would die out in a few generations. Yet in our culture, we think that in order to meet a baby's needs one has to have a crib, baby room, playpen, high chair, stroller, monitors, pacifiers, bottles, formula, baby food, diapers, clothes, daily baby baths, schedules, medicine, vaccinations, pediatrician, and so on. We evolved without any of these things, most of which did not exist until the past couple hundred years. To believe a baby "needs" any of them is to believe a cultural norm while not understanding human baby physiology. The limit by which one understands baby physiology, is a limit to which one can successfully discharge parental responsibility (according to the premise in the preceding paragraph). That in turn directly affects the health and potential of the baby.

"Unnatural" substances, practices, and devices (like those listed above) are necessarily entities that were not part of our evolutionary heritage. They are unexpected, in an evolutionary sense, to members of our species. Their introduction comes at a risk to a baby's health. Humans, including human babies, are adaptable. In theory, a baby can adapt to foreign entities. In practice, in nearly every case, adaptations to the unnatural compromise the baby's ability to get his or her needs met. An obvious example, using formula reduces the amount of human breastmilk a baby gets. No formula can match a mother's milk in nutritional content and the formula's delivery method (through a bottle or tube) undercuts meeting the baby's need for the mother's closeness. (Many of those above items--crib, separate room, playpen, high chair, stroller--also undercut this need.)

Some unnatural items have a significant practical importance. Members of our species have moved far from our roots into colder climates and well-furnished environments. We use clothes for warmth in the former, diapers for cleanliness in the latter. Both clothes and diapers detract from the baby's ability to satisfy its needs for skin-to-skin touch. We may choose to introduce these baby "health risks" for the benefit of living where we live and minimizing clean-up. (Even so, when it's cold outside, setting a thermostat high inside allows a baby to be almost naked at least some of the time.) Sometimes the risk/benefit tradeoffs seem worthwhile; though in order to be able to make that personal judgement, one must understand the risks and benefits. A societal problem (as we see it) is that few people seek the understanding necessary to make a sound judgement. (An unconscious motivation not to think about risk/benefit tradeoffs: the "risks" are the baby's and are of a less obvious, more longterm nature; the "benefits" are typically the parents' and immediate as their lifestyles are less impacted.)

It seems to me that any situation identified as a "problem" by a parent is a clarion call to investigate where physiology and environment might be out of synch. A simple example: a baby's rash. Frequently this is a result of the baby coming into contact with a chemical residue present in laundry or on a surface the baby touched (or in a dirtied diaper a baby wasn't evolved to wear). The sensitive skin of a baby is flagging the unnatural environment. Other cases seem more subtle. When a baby wakes up crying or is lethargic or is unable to nurse; these are clues that the baby's physiology is not being honored. They are opportunities to reflect. Unfortunately, in our society, we look to fix the symptom and not understand the problem. We feel especially rushed (and less willing to reflect) because this is our precious baby that is having a problem and we want it fixed! We turn from nature to technology to solve a problem likely caused in the first place by the introduction of technology (unnatural entities) into nature (the human baby physiology).

An example Missy (as a La Leche League leader) has seen repeatedly; a baby no longer is able to nurse. Doctors, concerned that the baby is not getting enough to eat, recommend moving the baby from the breast to bottled formula. A problematic "solution" that prematurely terminates the incredibly important nursing relationship. The real problem, as Missy frequently discovers, is that the baby has nipple confusion. The introduction of a pacifier and/or bottles (even of breastmilk)--both of which result in a different and easier sucking style--confuse then frustrate a hungry baby. The healthy solution is to do away with all nipples other than mom's. It is a solution that goes back to nature.

A complication for parents who want to do the healthy thing for the baby is that it likely comes at a lifestyle cost to them. A mother who is available whenever her baby wants to nurse isn't ever away from her baby for more than a couple of hours. (Even that may be too long.) In our culture's view and perhaps her own, she has to "give up her freedom." A father would not have a night out with just the mom. He has to "give up his wife" or at least lower his priority in her life. The baby may be allergic to foods the mother eats (especially dairy products) or may be endangered by her other habits (smoking, alcohol, caffeine). These are habits she may rather not change. As we live farther from nature, honoring the nature of the baby appears to be more difficult and requiring of wholesale lifestyle changes. That problem too is most healthily addressed by understanding then honoring our own human animal nature.

A short list of parenting material of which we think highly follows:
 

• Mothering magazine - In our opinion, far and away the best parenting magazine.
• "How to Raise a Healthy Child: In Spite of Your Doctor" - by Robert Mendelsohn; the first place we turn to when we have baby/child health questions (check out the reader reviews for it on www.amazon.com).
• "Continuum Concept" - by Jean Liedloff. We read this short book over a year before Eric was born and it was tremendously influential in the forming of our parenting philosophy and practices.
• "The Family Bed" and "Mothering and Fathering: The Gender Differences in Child Rearing" by Tine Thevenin.
• Most any parenting book by William Sears.
• "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding" - by La Leche League. The next best thing (and complementary) to being involved in a La Leche League group.
• La Leche League group involvement.

© 1999 frantzs@geocities.com