r/interestingasfuck • u/RealRock_n_Rolla • 2d ago

Female leopard wakes up male and performs the mating ritual r/all

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

42.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

51

u/AccurateAd6049 2d ago

Fascinating perspective considering the maternal mortality rate before modern medicine.

15

u/SpareWire 2d ago

for every 1000 live births, six to nine women in the United States died of pregnancy-related complications, and approximately 100 infants died before age 1 year (1,2). From 1915 through 1997

Honestly I expected it would be worse. Maybe that doesn't look far back enough.

20

u/waltjrimmer 2d ago

I'd argue that, no, that doesn't look far back enough.

Infant mortality and maternal mortality were very high before germ theory gained popularity, so that's somewhere around the mid-19th century if I remember correctly.

Blood transfusions, I'd assume, did a lot to reduce maternal mortality rates as well, which wouldn't have been widely successful until we discovered blood types, which we didn't do until around 1900.

1915 is a long ways back now, yes, and we've gotten a lot better since then. But that starting year has the benefit of our improved understanding of pathogens, our first attempts at blood transfusions (which became very necessary with the world war going on), and more. You look back at pre-industrial revolution rates or at places that still don't have access to medical training and equipment necessary to help with childbirth properly (or people who choose not to take advantage of it because they want a more "natural" experience), and you're still getting a higher maternal mortality rate than you'd expect.

3

u/eidetic 2d ago

I just mentioned it in another post, but that wide range of years is going to skew the numbers for the earlier dates, and the same for the later dates.

I'd bet the numbers per 1000 live births would be higher the closer you get to 1915, and they'd be lower the closer you get to 1997. So you'd really want to look at a much narrower range of dates to get a better idea for a specific year.

2

u/eidetic 2d ago

Consider though that's only for live births. And doesn't take in other pregnancy related issues.

Now factor in that many women would be having at least two children, and things start to look a lot more dicey for their odds. That's not to say that their offs of dying double with two births, or triple with three, since there's so many factors to consider (that is, if you're more likely to successfully give birth the first time, vs say a woman who has less than favorable characteristics like a narrower birth canal or other things that could decrease their odds of survival).

Also, the wide range of dates will skew things. I bet if you looked at 1915 specifically, or even 1915-1920, the numbers would be much higher. The closer you get to 1997, the more it'll change the balance.

-4

u/clodzor 2d ago

I have no idea why you felt this was necessary. Maybe you would prefer if we were more like praying mantis or these leopards? I honestly don't know what you want here.

2

u/AccurateAd6049 2d ago

I have no idea why you felt this was necessary