Evolution is the process of natural development. Whether an animal or a car, we are permanently trying to boost on the prior model. Most progress is gradual, interrupted once in some time with a major breakthrough, like walking on two legs or ABS brakes.
So how is it that the human race, which is obviously the top of food chain, still needs the very best section of per year when having a baby? Especially if you think about that we usually only produce one, rather than a litter, let alone eggs by the hundreds. Haven’t we advanced sufficiently by the 21st century to be able to cut this down to significantly less than six months?
Evidently we’ve not, which raises the question, why not? It will be easy to place the blame on the women. Pregnancy is their job after all. But seeing as they got this all-important role because the men couldn’t be trusted with it, we’re hardly capable to point the finger.
So what’s the answer? There can really only be one logical conclusion. Pregnancy and childbirth take nine months because that’s just how long people need to choose a name. Let’s face it. Other species of animals have the birth process over with considerably quicker because they do not even bother, unless they’re a Disney character.
Our history has shown us that it can take quite a long time to produce a sensible name, so a child might as well stay static in the womb until we do. In reality, there are numerous examples that suggest nine months still isn’t long enough and we must extend it to a year. Just look at all the youngsters inventively called Junior, or Bob Smith III. It’s an admission that after three-quarters of per year, this is the best they might manage.
The very first hurdle is relatives. This is very true for younger parents, who generally have more of them alive, every one of whom desire to be immortalized by their grandchild inheriting their name. So unless you’re having quadruplets, you’ve got a problem حوامل.You can’t even escape with giving your youngster all four names, because only one can come first and top billing counts for everything. Next is the situation of the actual names grandparents have a tendency to have. It appears children’s names were a low priority when faced with the industrial revolution and the odd World War. Who would like to end up calling their child Algernon or Gertrude?
Another problem is the wife’s side of the family. Whether a lady took her husband’s name in matrimony, she will probably want her family name to survive, so that it becomes a child’s middle name, even when it isn’t one at all. Just ask Mary Carbunkle Jones.
The sole exception is if these people are 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 matter of pets. Not naming them, as that’s easy and they do not care anyway. The sole guideline is to remember that perhaps you are in the park one day shouting at your puppy, so names like “Fatty” and “Loser” are bad choices.
The problem is that you can’t name your youngster after a pet. You could such as the name Max, but if an uncle had a Doberman called Max, it’s only not going to happen. Charlie is a great selection for either gender — except if someone had a pet of exactly the same designation that got run over. It’s as though by choosing that name, you’re condemning your youngster to a fate of jumping out of a window, chasing a bird and getting hit with a truck.
If anything, choosing a title must be much easier now. These days, just about anything is acceptable. If you can’t find a real name you prefer, then think about circumstances, a nation or a continent? A food-group will do. But regardless of the infinite choice, it’s amazing how many parents mess up. They don’t think what sort of child’s name may be changed, shortened or generally twisted into something that may scar their psyche for life. How hard was school for famous brands Jeremy Attric, Philip Ness and Frank Ukwit? Who knows, perhaps if he hadn’t been called Adolf, things could have been different.