http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16238556/site/newsweek/
"The record of white males in high places has not exactly been stellar of late, and voters might be in the mood to try something historic and possibly redemptive."
I'm ready! Lets give Captain Janeway or Sisko an opportunity to pilot the USS Enterprise. They were much better than Kirk.
While no analysts say electing a woman president is impossible, some still make that case about a black candidate. They suggest discarding analogies to the broad appeal of Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods: "There's a willingness to be entertained by African-Americans, but to be governed by them is a completely different story," says Lawrence Otis Graham, an African-American author. "White men have socialized and worked under women, but much more rarely under blacks. Whatever they say, when they go in the polling place, they won't go for it." Focus groups sponsored by Wilder during his abortive 1992 presidential campaign found that such hidden racial feelings continued to play a big role.

No one has offered a full explanation, though the best theory is that women were more vulnerable than men to Republican attack ads claiming they coddled illegal aliens with taxpayer-supported benefits. It's apparently easier to make women candidates look soft, and there's not much penalty for beating up on them. "Too often when a woman runs, it's about being man enough for the job—and hair, hemline and husband," says Marie Wilson, director of a program to advance women candidates called the White House Project. Wilson says voters associate men with power and authority: "A female Obama would be questioned a great deal more about stepping forward with his level of experience."

One piece of encouraging news from Tennessee is that the returns showed no signs of the "Bradley Effect," in which white voters tell pollsters they will vote for the black candidate, then go into the voting booth and choose someone else. (The phenomenon was named after Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who in 1982 led in the final polls for governor of California but lost.) The final results in Tennessee actually showed Ford doing several points better than some election-eve polls suggested. "I don't know that a white Democrat would have done any better, and maybe even worse," Obama told NEWSWEEK. (Hillary declined to comment on the issues surrounding the prospect of a black or woman president.)

They have their reasoning all wrong of me. I don't particularly care who gets in the office so long as I'm convinced they can do the job of running the country.

As for the two that they are pushing. I don't know a lot about Obama, so he has a neutral standing with me. I'm not convinced Hillary is in it for anything but Hillary.

Whoever goes up against these two. Don't underestimate their political ability. Hillary, in particular, is a superb politician. She knows how to play the game.

I know, none of this is what you want to hear nor is it a suprise. Indeed, my opinion doesn't matter in this case because I'm from a state that is not only insignificant, its electoral votes go to the Democrats 99% of the time, no matter the candidate.

I think everyone says that:
I don't particularly care who gets in the office so long as I'm convinced they can do the job of running the country.
But then they elect someone like Bush, which from all the indications of both his campaigns he was more about being a "folksy, country kind of guy" versus someone who was particularly qualified or even very intelligent. The complaint about Kerry and I think Gore too was that they were both "too smart" and not enough personality.

So personally I think people talk about qualifications but then end up voting on appearances anyway.

But regardless of the actual candidates, it sounds like there's still a lot of people who wouldn't vote for a woman or a black man.

We'll never vote for women or minorities so long as the major parties keep giving us only middle aged Aryan Christian males as choices. This is purely in the hands of the Republican and Democratic parties, not the voters.

It will happen some day without much ado, and then everyone will wonder why we waited so long.

I suspect the United States is ready for either.

Canada had a female prime minister in 1993. Kim Campbell was the third female head of government ever in North America. Dominica and Nicaragua also have had female leaders.

Campbell was the only the second woman leader in the Group of Seven, after British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

If Canada can have a female head of state, I see no reason why the United States couldn't.

If Canada can have a female head of state, I see no reason why the United States couldn't.
I think we have a streak of conservatism that you guys just don't have up there.

It is surprising that so many of what were once third-world countries had female leaders before we did.

I am all for Condoleezza. I also loved Margaret Thatcher. Oh wait, they dont count since they are conservatives.

The Clinton machine is already after Obama too. I will give Dick Morris his due. He works his ass off for either side depending on where the check is coming from.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25926

Its not like he has a tough job though. Obama is the most overhyped politician I have ever seen. He is the Paris Hilton of politics. He gets by just by getting his picture taken. Please give me an example of something he has done.

It's too bad Powell said no, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat. Still would.

Scary as it sounds, I would bet that if given the chance, Oprah wouldn't do a half bad job. I'm not one of her big fans, I never watch her show or read her magazines, but I am impressed with her as a person.

http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/congressmen_info?id=113
http://www.fantasycongress.com/fc/public/browse/SenatorsList.jsp?sortby=total_points%20DESC
Obama is ranked #29 using Fantasy Congress's scoring system.

I suppose that's one way of quantifying it. :P

Obviously there are flaws, the most glaring one being that the scoring system rewards quantity rather than quality. Still, at least it shows Obama has been doing his share of work as a senator!

I think if a Republican black man or woman ran they'd have a great chance. But not a democrat. The reason is that for any candidate to win they've got to get voters from the other side to vote for them, I think Demo's would probably cross over just to show support for them, but I don't think Republicans would. Although even I wouldn't vote for that ass-hat from Ohio, Blackwell.

The reason Obama is so popular is because he's an unknown still, he is black, he is pretty charming, he is young, hasn't ever had to run a really tough campaign. Senators pretty much never get elected as presidents (has one ever been?) because their records are so public and they become well known for their policies. It is generally outsiders, the less you know about them, the better they tend to look. So he still fits into that outsider category but it won't last long.

To the candidates:

All I ask is, for the love of all that is good, as a candidate, please tell us what you will do and not just why you think the other guy is a slimeball. The very fact that you are running means you don't think the other guy can do the job adequately else you wouldn't be running.

Also, the fear thing has been done to death. Don't run on a platform that simply says you'll protect your constituents from scary things. Use your brain, talk about REAL issues and should you win, actually work hard to do the things you promised.

Convince ME you have the good of the nation in mind and will work for the people.

As long as there continues to be qualified candidates like Rice or Clinton it won't be long before there is a woman President and it won't be an issue when it happens.

To me it seems that Rice and Clinton needed to play the political system exceptionally well to get to their current positions. However it is now precisely those roles as political insiders which holds them back.

How about adding that you won't pander to the base just to get more votes? I'm sure the Religious Right is probably pretty sick of being sick of that.

I do think the original article raises some good points like women have to be tougher appearing than men otherwise people think they're weak. There's a lot going on psychologically that I think most people are completely unaware of, that plays into their unexplored biases.
No one has offered a full explanation, though the best theory is that women were more vulnerable than men to Republican attack ads claiming they coddled illegal aliens with taxpayer-supported benefits. It's apparently easier to make women candidates look soft, and there's not much penalty for beating up on them. "Too often when a woman runs, it's about being man enough for the job—and hair, hemline and husband," says Marie Wilson, director of a program to advance women candidates called the White House Project. Wilson says voters associate men with power and authority: "A female Obama would be questioned a great deal more about stepping forward with his level of experience."

I would vote for Rice or Clinton just to get the whole drama thing over once and for all.

I mean Rice is an idiot, but no more so than her boss, status quo ante. Well, she might not really be one, but she has to play one because of her boss, perhaps.

Clinton has seemed to turn a little more conservative or at least hawkish in her age.

Sure beats all the male contenders who are in the box at this time, that is for sure.


I would vote for Powell, but he would never pass the vetting process. Why, because he has a brain and a conscience, which is a poor qualifier for a true politician. Or rather a successful one.

qualified candidates like RiceRice isn't even qualified for her current job, which requires her to do just about nothing.

Rice isn't even qualified for her current job, which requires her to do just about nothing.

Apart from give the President permission to go to the toilet :).

Apart from give the President permission to go to the toilet :).

That was hilarious, wasn't it.?

/chuckle

While there are, I'm sure, women and people of color whom I'd vote for...none of them are going to run.

Hillary and Obama are unelectable, if the Dems nominate one of them, we'll lose.

Hillary because even democrats hate her...everyone loves Bill, but Hillary was the nagging wife that you wish would shut the **** up go out with her friends during card night, instead of trying to play a competeing game of ****ing bridge with her friends on the same night. She's also blatantly mercenary and has shown not one iota of opinion that wasn't carefully crafted to further her political aspirations.

Obama is quite possible electable, but not for another couple presidential elections. He needs to, at the bare minimum, complete at least one full term as Senator, preferably two. It has nothing to do with his race...but with his newb status.

If Powell ran...I'd vote for him. How he ever ended up in the GOP is beyond me, but I'd vote for him. Unfortunately he's smart enough to realize that the first black president has a very good chance of being shot by some nutbag...and he survived a military career and a stint at SecState...I think his wife won't let him become President =P

As for women...I'm sure there are some out there, but I don't know of any right now. Pelosi? **** no. Boxer? Doubtful, though she's not as much of a nutbag as Pelosi. Granholm from Michigan? I don't think so.

On the otherhand...if the two major parties are so stupid as to ignore their two major known moderates (McCain and Lieberman), I hope they decide to go their own and run 3rd party. I'd vote for Liberman/McCain (or even McCain/Lieberman) in an instant, even if Liberman is scary in his views on violent video games.

We tend to elect governors to be president, but I think the last Senator to be elected as President was John F Kennedy.

McCain isn't moderate about a lot of issues. I'm sure once he starts campaigning any remaining moderation will be right out the window. He's already making nicey-nice with Jerry Falwell.
We tend to elect governors to be president, but I think the last Senator to be elected as President was John F Kennedy.
Yes, and I think the reason why is because most of the country doesn't really know much about them. We think they're outsiders and believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that that is a good thing.

Boxer is a nutbag.

I don't know what you have seen of Pelosi to qualify her, but I have missed it. And I have seen Boxer speak, she is a shrill nutbag.

But if you are liberal, I could see how you like her.

Shrill. I notice you never assign labels like that to men.

Ya, I do.

ost guys are usually just assholes or dipsh1ts, though. And don't forget dickwad.

Terms I have applied to men in threads still on the front page, used in the last 24 hours.

Being only 'shrill' is higher up(as in less bad) than both being an asshole or a dipsh1t, fyi. Or a dickwad.

I don't know of many shrill guys or males, though. Richard Simmons is shrill, perhaps.

And that Andy guy, Tom Green's look alike brother whatever guy, he's shrill.

I never assign labels like "Mrs" to men, either Pan.

what in the everloving **** is your point?

Women are shrill shrews harping on things.

en are loutish boors bellowing about stuff.

Suck it up, our language has gender specific connotations to the words used within it. Every language does...some explicitly by associating everyday words with a gender.

Women nag, men insist. Women can't make up their minds, men change their views based on new information. Women are shrill, men are strident.

en are loutish boors bellowing about stuff.
Yeah, lets see how many times I've heard you post that. Uh... zero?

Women nag, men insist. Women can't make up their minds, men change their views based on new information. Women are shrill, men are strident.


Yeah, lets see how many times I've heard you post that. Uh... zero?

And how many times have you posted similar things?

Women can't make up their minds....men flip-flop. Women are shrill, men bitch or whine.

Women nag....**** women and their nagging.

Remember that women distrust women in politics even more than the men do. So it seems anyway :).

Remember that women distrust women in politics even more than the men do. So it seems anyway :).
Yes, that is true. Sucks, but is true. :\

That's because the only people who hate women more than psuedo-mysogynists like myself....are other women.

It is not without cause that when the concept of Jealousy is anthromorphised, Jealousy is regarded as female...

That's because the only people who hate women more than psuedo-mysogynists like myself....
A pseudo-misogynist like you may find this cathartic -- Boneless Girl (http://www.addictinggames.com/bonelessgirl.html).

That's because the only people who hate women more than psuedo-mysogynists like myself....are other women.

It is not without cause that when the concept of Jealousy is anthromorphised, Jealousy is regarded as female...

Oh, I don't know. I think all that dick measuring is jealousy behavior.

A pseudo-misogynist like you may find this cathartic -- Boneless Girl (http://www.addictinggames.com/bonelessgirl.html).

That is....disturbing.

Oh, I don't know. I think all that dick measuring is jealousy behavior.

No, not jealousy...competitiveness. There is a distinct difference.

And even with such...men don't take it to the extreme's women do. 70% of the time, if two guys get into conflict...so long as they are both upfront, honest, and follow the unspoken rules of "fairness", they will remain respectful and even friendly afterwards.

Women will spend the rest of their lives plotting the downfall of that whorish slut who dared oppose them.

It is jockeying for dominance.

Not so much, because we rarely attach long term conditions to victory. Men compete for competitions sake...because our biology demands it. Tens of millenia of having to compete to impress women with our various prowesses compel male competition.

Its practice, if you would.

Not so much, because we rarely attach long term conditions to victory. Men compete for competitions sake...because our biology demands it. Tens of millenia of having to compete to impress women with our various prowesses compel male competition.

Its practice, if you would.
I think it is hardwired into our brains and channeled a bit into less agressive behavior usually (WWF excepted), but it is probably the same sort of behavior apes display. It is just that, being the animal in question, we've got some other name for it and can't really recognize it for what it is but anyone that is educated on primate behavior probably has a few private chuckles about what they observe in humans.

I think it is hardwired into our brains and channeled a bit into less agressive behavior usually (WWF excepted), but it is probably the same sort of behavior apes display.Not surprising, since humans are apes. But male competitive behavior is seen in almost any complex animal species; you'd be a fool not to recognize it. It's the reason men tend to like competitive sports, whereas women tend not to. Women compete too, but on a level completely different from that of men.

Women compete for souls...

I think it is hardwired into our brains and channeled a bit into less agressive behavior usually (WWF excepted), but it is probably the same sort of behavior apes display. It is just that, being the animal in question, we've got some other name for it and can't really recognize it for what it is but anyone that is educated on primate behavior probably has a few private chuckles about what they observe in humans.

Humans are not apes.

Human, and especially female competition, is much more different. And female competition, because it is much more complex, is almost completely socially accepted, as exonerated as it is insidious.

ost guys(and many girls) don't understand female competition. Just try and get any self respecting heterosexual male to explain, The Devil Wears Prada, The Princess Diaries, Steel Magnolias, Miss Congeniality, or Mean Girls. Most guys have no idea what those movies are about.

Female competition is much more complex, but don't think for a moment that it is less ubiquitous or less pervasive than male competition.

Not surprising, since humans are apes.
Humans are not apes.

Apes do not need other apes to breed(or rather deliver offspring) or feed their offspring.

Humans do.

Because of the relatively small head sizes that most apes have at birth(and low maternal death rates), they do not need the same behaviors, or social structures that humans have innately developed after our split(from true apes).

Actually we are part of the Ape "Supergroup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Apes are the members of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates, which includes humans. Under current classification, there are two families of hominoids:

* the family Hylobatidae consists of 4 genera and 12 species of gibbons, including the Lar Gibbon and the Siamang, collectively known as the "lesser apes"
* the family Hominidae consisting of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, and humans,[1][2] collectively known as the "great apes".

A few other primates have the word "ape" in their common names, but they are not regarded as true apes by most authorities.

Humans are not apes.Taxonomically, humans are great apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.Because of the relatively small head sizes that most apes have at birth(and low maternal death rates), they do not need the same behaviors, or social structures that humans have innately developed after our split(from true apes).Whether or not this is true, it's irrelevant. We do not define taxonomy based on specific behaviors.

so slow tuda!

Taxonomically, humans are great apes, along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.Whether or not this is true, it's irrelevant. We do not define taxonomy based on specific behaviors.
Taxonomy is merely a descriptive language.

And a language which is presently very dynamic and ever changing, and in this regard and case wrong. The so called Tree of Life has changed enormously over the last 20 years.

To hold the description about something above 'what is' about a something is wrong, or at least very inaccurate.

No other ape has menses. All of them have estrus. Besides humans. 13 cycles per year as opposed to 3 or 4 cycles a year is an enormous physiological difference between the species.

And a language which is presently very dynamic and ever changing, and in this regard and case wrong.Until you get the scientific community to agree with you, I'll stick with the "wrong" definition, your odd fascination with ape sex notwithstanding.

Until you get the scientific community to agree with you, I'll stick with the "wrong" definition, your odd fascination with ape sex notwithstanding.

The scientific community is still trying to discover all of the similarities between humans and apes. That is fine, for comparative studies, for we 'ethically' cannot experiment on humans.

So what if Jane Goodall can show that an adult chimp can learn 100 words. When a two year old can know 2 or 300. And an adult human can have a vocabulary in the 10s of thousands.

That does us little good, and besides the empathy side of the deal, it does the apes no good either. Well it might be good entertainment, of course.

Don't get me wrong. But we have not been on the same branch for about 4 million years. What has happened to us during that time, is just much more interesting. Why do we have the ability to know 50,000 words, why did we develop the ability? That is very much more interesting that the fact that Jane can teach a chimp 100 words, in and of itself.

Who is Koko?

When Penny Patterson, a young graduate student in psychology at Stanford, first saw a tiny, undernourished baby gorilla named Hanabi-Ko at the San Francisco Zoo, she had little inkling that the sickly ape would become her constant companion - and the subject of the longest continuous experiment ever undertaken to teach language to another species. But within a year, Project Koko was underway, and in two weeks the gorilla was using correct signed gestures for food, drink, and more. Today, more than 25 years later, Koko - the world's most renowned gorilla - is drawing on a vocabulary of more than 1,000 words.
Hmmm... not sure how apes and chimps compare but Koko the gorilla knows 1,000 words and even some syntactical stuff.

I saw a dog on TV that understands 200-300 words, so 100 words for a chimp seems kind of low.

Ah, according to this, chimps are even teaching each other signs: http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/language.htm

What has happened to us during that time, is just much more interesting. Why do we have the ability to know 50,000 words, why did we develop the ability?Complex neocortical development, thanks to a genetic mutation (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9767-fastestevolving-human-gene-linked-to-brain-boost.html). A more complex neocortex leads to more abstract thinking, which necessarily requires more language.

What is your point, exactly? Humans are so good that they're no longer in the same taxonomic group as their closest genetic ancestors?

aybe we should group ourselves with other species that have complex calls, like dolphins and whales. Would that make more sense to you?

Hmmm... not sure how apes and chimps compare but Koko the gorilla knows 1,000 words and even some syntactical stuff.A gorilla is a great ape, too. A direct comparison of vocabulary is rather silly, though, since we're imposing our standards on a different species. It would be like a gibbon thinking he's superior because he can swing through the trees faster than a human.

We da men!

A gorilla is a great ape, too. A direct comparison of vocabulary is rather silly, though, since we're imposing our standards on a different species. It would be like a gibbon thinking he's superior because he can swing through the trees faster than a human.
But we're genetically more similar to chimps than gorillas. So I'd have thought the chimp would have the superior language skills, over a gorilla.

But we're genetically more similar to chimps than gorillas. So I'd have thought the chimp would have the superior language skills, over a gorilla.The genetic mutations responsible for human neocortical development occurred after we split off from our ape relatives, so it really doesn't matter. Gorillas and chimpanzees are so similar to humans, it's splitting hairs anyway.

Also, species have varying incentives to learn language. Prairie dogs aren't the most intelligent animals, but they have a very complex language (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/prairie_dogs_041206.html) -- because they have to, to avoid becoming lunch for the next hawk or coyote.

Then you have species that are very far removed from humans in evolutionary terms, such as dolphins and parrots, yet have high intelligence and complex language.

So it's not just a simple matter of saying, "X is most closely related to modern humans, so X is the most intelligent and has the best language skills."

Complex neocortical development, thanks to a genetic mutation (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9767-fastestevolving-human-gene-linked-to-brain-boost.html). A more complex neocortex leads to more abstract thinking, which necessarily requires more language.

What is your point, exactly?

y point is hidden within this post.

The title of the article that you linked is more apt...
Fastest-evolving human gene linked to brain boost

And the conclusionary quote from the researcher you linked.
“Something caused our brains to evolve to be much larger and have more functions than the brains of other mammals,” he points out.


You, for your reasons, assumed that it was a mere random genetic mutation(which it might have been).

I, like your researcher, would like to discover what that something was and is, instead of leaping to a simple, and most certainly, wrong answer. That is my point.

So are we related to parrots?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3430481.stm

He's male and grey. Is America ready for it?

So are we related to parrots?Our last common ancestor is the common ancestor of all modern reptiles, dinosaurs, and modern mammals, and lived hundreds of millions of years ago. It's obvious proof that language and analytical intelligence is not a human trait that's judged by evolutionary proximity to humans.

You, for your reasons, assumed that it was a mere random genetic mutation(which it might have been).

I, like your researcher, would like to discover what that something was and is, instead of leaping to a simple, and most certainly, wrong answer. That is my point.How do species evolve, if not by random mutations followed by selection pressure? Do you think advanced aliens came to Earth and made GMO hominids?

Traits are selected by humans, of course.

We are doing it right now, we are even selecting traits which we want in mates(actually for our children) which have never actually existed in nature before...whitened teeth, breast implants, etc.

The traits which are triggered into selecting the traits are even selected.

If you can't imagine some female ancestor 4 million years ago thinking to herself, "Ahhh, Ugg sure looks like those gorillas over there, but Mug, his nose is pointy cute, and does not look like a gorilla, and he has lighter eyes and skin too. Ohh what is the wetness here between my legs? Ooh, what is that tingling?"...I can't help you out man.

You just need to go out to a bar, it happens every day and every night. It happens at colleges, and at church socials on Sundays too.

But then again, you might be some GQ model for all I know, and get laid at the drop of a condom wrapper. I still have to work my ass off to get laid.

Yes, humans overall selected for higher intelligence, as many species do. Put differently, those that didn't hit an evolutionary dead end (e.g., Neanderthals).

This doesn't mean that it wasn't a random mutation that started it, so I fail to see where you're going with this.

It also doesn't mean that individual females always selected for the same traits. Obviously, many thought the Neanderthal look was hot and the wimpy sapiens were not, or else the Neanderthals would not have survived as long as they did. But only the ancestors of those that made the smart choice survive today.

It also doesn't mean that individual females always selected for the same traits.

There is no evidence that they did. And no reason why it would mean that at all.

In fact the opposite, many conflicting or opposing traits would be selected out or in over the millennia, is more evident or likely. In case you hadn't noticed with women today who want two opposing things in a mate at the same time.

Nice guys don't always finish last. They may have in fact finished 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. While the bad boy, got in first but only first. Most women have some form of rape fantasy, the same women might think of taking her life instead of being raped.

Neanderthals had on average a 1600 cc cranial capacity, with about the same body frame as modern humans(give or take), homo sapiens 1450. It is very likely that the trait for selecting larger head to body ratios doomed that species to extinction. If Neanderthals did not have the social structures that humans have developed to contain or emeliorate maternal deaths during childbirth, then that would have hastened their species' demise, of course. This would obviously require detailed studies of (neonate)head to (maternal)pelvis ratios of Neanderthals, and I have not seen such studies. Then again, our ancestors could have just killed them all and ate 'em, of course.

You keep trying to imply that I think that this was all some kind of linear course, there is no evidence of that. It looks more like a huge complex fractal to me. The patterns are there, and they are repeating(cross culturally for the most part as well). Not to imply that socialization itself is outside the fractal, not at all.

Neanderthals had on average a 1600 cc cranial capacity, with about the same body frame as modern humans(give or take), homo sapiens 1450. It is very likely that the trait for selecting larger head to body ratios doomed that species to extinction. If Neanderthals did not have the social structures that humans have developed to contain or emeliorate maternal deaths during childbirth, then that would have hastened their species' demise, of course. This would obviously require detailed studies of (neonate)head to (maternal)pelvis ratios of Neanderthals, and I have not seen such studies. Then again, our ancestors could have just killed them all and ate 'em, of course.Neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt to the changing environment. They were robust and well adapted to the cold, but when that changed, their advantage over modern humans disappeared, and modern humans pushed them to extinction.

Your theory about childbirth makes little sense. They almost certainly did assist in childbirth (I think I linked you an article about this not long ago). If they hadn't, they likely would have never flourished as a species to begin with. And it wasn't just their heads that were bigger, their whole bodies were bigger. They were built like a human with armor plating.

Oh, you might be interested in this (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0011-3204%28198808%2F10%2929%3A4%3C595%3ATFSONP%3E2.0.C O%3B2-X&size=LARGE), and other articles by Karen Rosenberg, who specializes in the anthropology of childbirth.

Neanderthals died out because they couldn't adapt to the changing environment.

I can think of a few modern humans today that are afraid of change just because it is change. Perhaps they will die out, too.