Ramadan and medical risk

‘If you know someone in southeastern Uganda who is having a baby next year, you should hope with all your heart that the baby isn’t born in May. If so, it will be roughly 20 percent more likely to have visual, hearing, or learning disabilities as an adult.
Three years from now, however, May would be a fine month to have a baby. But the danger will only have shifted, not disappeared; April would now be the cruelest month.


The economists Douglas Almond and Bhashkar Mazumder have a simple answer for this strange and troubling phenomenon: Ramadan. [...] Islam calls for a daytime fast from food and drink for the entire month of Ramadan. Most Muslim women participate even while pregnant; it’s not a round-the-clock fast, after all. Still, as Almond and Mazumder found by analyzing years’ worth of natality data, babies that were in utero during Ramadan are more likely to exhibit developmental aftereffects. The magnitude of these effects depends on which month of gestation the baby is in when Ramadan falls. The effects are strongest when fasting coincides with the first month of pregnancy, but they can occur if the mother fasts at any time up to the eighth month.’

From chapter 2 of Superfreakonomics, a book I as previously mentioned on the twitter am currently reading. Do note that the largest risk is at the point in time where the woman is least likely to be aware that she’s even engaging in risky behaviour that might hurt her child. There’s both the likelihood that she doesn’t know that she’s pregnant and there’s the timing issue; a pregnant woman say in the third trimester has probably known for a long time that she’d be pregnant during the fasting period and she’s had plenty of time to seek medical advice, whereas a woman who’s just gotten pregnant is far less likely to know all the relevant risks relating to her pregnancy, of which fasting is but one of many. And yes, I am well aware that this is far from the only relevant effect of Ramadan – it also ie. increases the risk of traffic accidents.

Unfortunately I don’t think mentioning these things to a female muslim will make her much less likely to choose to fast – however maybe I’m wrong. My ‘gut feeling’ is this: The higher the perceived costs of this practise, the more the female will feel like a ‘pure muslim’ when doing it; the more reinforced will be her conviction that she’s a better person than people who do not fast. I mean – if fasting is just a stupid ancient practise devoid of any meaning, you’d be a bloody moron to do it, right? So you make up stories to make the behaviour look ‘reasonable’. Also, if you don’t defend the madness, you’re not part of the group, you can’t be trusted, and the madder the madness is, the better it works as a selection mechanism because it gets easier to tell the difference between the truly mad and the posers. There’s a reason religion is still around. One of the more efficient ways to make people believe stupid things is to make doing stupid things seem like the smart thing to do. Once you get used to doing stupid things, believing stupid things will come completely natural to you. That’s why god invented prayer. No, wait…

August 14, 2010 Posted by | books, islam, religion | 4 Comments


Spørgsmålene drejer sig vel nok mest om, hvor isoleret blogging-verdenen egentligt er, og hvor meget overlap der finder sted mellem online-verdenen og ‘Real Life’. Det tager 10 sekunder at svare, og jeg kan umuligt være den eneste, der er bare lidt interesseret i svarene på disse spørgsmål. Uddyb meget gerne i kommentarsektionen. Svar fra ikke-regelmæssige læsere som ‘nu’ læser posten to uger efter den blev postet er meget velkomne, hvis du vil være sikker på at din feedback registreres så efterlad gerne en kommentar.

I spørgsmål 3 står det dig frit for selv at definere hvad der menes med ‘ofte’. Mht. mine egne svar på de pågældende spørgsmål, så har jeg mange gange nævnt ny viden/forskning/mv. som jeg har fra blogs (og wikipedia) i forbindelse med samtaler med min familie, og jeg taler ikke regelmæssigt med ret mange andre. Men jeg har formentligt kun en håndfuld gange nævnt den specifikke blog i disse samtaler, både fordi det er vanskeligt for mig at huske, hvor informationen kommer fra, med mindre det er helt frisk information, men også fordi informationen i sig selv, naturligvis i det omfang den faktisk har interesse, for modtager synes at være det eneste relevante interesseobjekt, ikke kilden.

Jeg har indtryk af, at meget af den aktivitet der finder sted på blogs osv. er relativt isoleret fra resten af personens gøremål, og at de fleste er utilbøjelige til at inddrage blog-relaterede aktiviteter i sociale sammenhænge ‘offline’, men jeg ved det faktisk ikke med nogen grad af sikkerhed, det er bare et indtryk. Det afhænger selvfølgelig af bloggen, men blogs som denne – især efter den løbende transitionsperiode som har fundet sted de sidste par år, hvor jeg i vidt omfang har erstattet de politiske posts med videnstunge artikler o.l. – og læserne, ville jeg forvente havde en sådan profil. Man læser vel i vidt omfang bloggen, og kommenterer, i det omfang man gør det, her, fordi det er svært at finde folk ‘ude i det virkelige liv’, der er interesserede i de ting, der skrives om på bloggen, korrekt?

August 14, 2010 Posted by | meta, polls | Leave a comment


From a brilliant post by Katja Grace:

“Discrimination’ can mean all sorts of things. One of the main ones, and what it will mean in this post, is differential treatment of people from different groups, due to real or imagined differences in average group features. Discrimination is a problem because the many people who don’t have the supposed average features of a group they are part of are misconstrued as having them, and offered inappropriate treatment and opportunities as a result. For instance a capable and trustworthy middle aged man may miss out on a babysitting job for which he is truly the best candidate because the parents take his demographic information as reason not to trust him with their children.

This means that ‘discrimination’ is really a misnomer; this problem is due to lack of discrimination. In particular lack of discrimination between members of the groups. [...] Even if observers can’t discriminate perfectly, more ability to discriminate means less misrepresentation.”


“The usual solution suggested for ‘discrimination’ is for everyone to forget about groups and act only on any specific evidence they have about individuals. Implicitly this advice is to expect everyone to have the average characteristics of the whole population except where individual evidence is available. Notice that generalizing over a larger group like this should increase the misrepresentation of people, and thus their inappropriate treatment. Recall that that was the original problem with discrimination.”


“if you want to stop discrimination because it causes people to be treated as less than they are, then work on making it easier to discriminate between people further, rather than harder to discriminate between them at all. Help people signal their traits cheaply and efficiently distinguish between others. In the absence of perfect discrimination between individuals, the other end of the spectrum is not the next best thing, it’s the extreme of misrepresentation.”

I seem to remember making some of the same points not long ago here.

August 14, 2010 Posted by | economics | Leave a comment



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers