NationStates Jolt Archive

I heard somewhere that if one were to birth a baby and then raise it with minimal contact (i.e. bottle feed, dont hold it in arms...) the baby would die.

Does anyone know if this is true?

Absolutely true. Probably somewhere between birth and ... say ... 100 years old.

Absolutely true. Probably somewhere between birth and ... say ... 100 years old.

Perhaps I should rephrase my question so as to avoid further bad sarcasm.

The baby would die prematurely from lack of human contact. It would die as a baby and not from old age.

There have been studies done that tried to measure the effects of affection on babies. They did show that the babies not getting much affection tended to have a significantly lower life expectancy.

Yes, in fact its very common

Yes, in fact its very common

What's common? The testing or babies dying from lack of human contact?

I heard somewhere that if one were to birth a baby and then raise it with minimal contact (i.e. bottle feed, dont hold it in arms...) the baby would die.

Does anyone know if this is true?


It is true. The condition is called "Failure to Thrive". There are certain psychological and emotional conditions that, if not met, could lead to a baby's refusal to eat, weight loss, apathy, and eventual death.

It occurs most often in foster children, I believe, before they are taken and put in a good home.

Wow.

Y'learn something new every day. o.o

It is true. The condition is called "Failure to Thrive". There are certain psychological and emotional conditions that, if not met, could lead to a baby's refusal to eat, weight loss, apathy, and eventual death.

It occurs most often in foster children, I believe, before they are taken and put in a good home.


That's really sad.

That's really sad.

It truly is. My partner at work has two foster girls who were Failure to Thrive (that's where I learned of it)...they are 3 and 2 years old, and both weigh under 30 pounds.

For over a year they were not allowed to have any empty calories (cookies, etc.) because they were so underweight...their biological parents moved them from place to place and basically let anyone keep them, so they never formed attachments...

One of them was dangerously close to being hospitalized...

Wow. Didn't know it went on to humans. Kind of figured it could.

Harry Harlow lives......

People can die of lack of sleep too... It's kinda off topic but I though I'd mention it.

First they'll get blind and/or they start hallucinating, they get paranoid, they die... All done in under 3 weeks ;)
Drives people crazy as a Mad cow

It wouldn't die, but it would have almost no social skills at all. It's actually been done before. Not by experimentation, but by evil parents. The child was 15, and never talked or anything. Take a sociology class, and you'll learn more about it.

People can die of lack of sleep too... It's kinda off topic but I though I'd mention it.

First they'll get blind and/or they start hallucinating, they get paranoid, they die... All done in under 3 weeks ;)
Drives people crazy as a Mad cow

THAT condition is called "Fatal Familial Insomnia"...and it can actually last 6 months or more...

Scary stuff...

Well, there was this king person who wanted to find out what language babies would speak if they were never exposed to language. So he had 50 infants who were fed, had their diapers changed, etc, but not held, cuddled, or spoken to. The babies all died.

I'm thinking Jungle Book/Tarzan right now...

Would babies survive with animal attention/love/caring/whatever?

Well, there was this king person who wanted to find out what language babies would speak if they were never exposed to language. So he had 50 infants who were fed, had their diapers changed, etc, but not held, cuddled, or spoken to. The babies all died.

Even today, in our modern age, people don't realize the value of simply BEING with your children...holding them, nurturing them, etc. Failure to Thrive is way to common.

I believe parents should pass a test for parenthood....you have to get a license to drive a car, but not have kids....

I'm thinking Jungle Book/Tarzan right now...

Would babies survive with animal attention/love/caring/whatever?

I don't factually know...but I believe that a child could survive in conditions like that, raised by animals, etc, because there would still be emotionally stable and consistent attachment.

I don't factually know...but I believe that a child could survive in conditions like that, raised by animals, etc, because there would still be emotionally stable and consistent attachment.

I think it wouldn't survive, but not because of a lack of care. If the child was raised by animals, then it would be taught to act like an animal. However, the child does not have the instincts and/or natural characteristics to act like an animal.

Even today, in our modern age, people don't realize the value of simply BEING with your children...holding them, nurturing them, etc. Failure to Thrive is way to common.

I believe parents should pass a test for parenthood....you have to get a license to drive a car, but not have kids....

I've long been a proponent of this.

I was looking for internet stories of human children raised by wolves but this is all I could find on short notice.

I had read a book long ago that supposedly had factually documented cases of humans raised by not only wolves but also chickens and displayed nearly identical behavior to the "parents". But I don't know where that book is now. I think it was called "The Crack In The Cosmic Egg".

Has a human child ever been raised by wolves or other animals?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Cecil:

Has there ever been a human raised entirely by (other) animals? We are particularly interested in wolves here a la Kipling. --Hanna L. and J.P., New York

Cecil replies:

It wouldn't surprise me. One look at Axl Rose and you know the guy wasn't raised by Ozzie and Harriet. But nobody knows for sure.

The idea of children raised by wolves definitely stirs the imagination--it's inspired stories ranging from Romulus and Remus to Tarzan of the Apes. There are a lot of claims of actual sightings, too, many from India, where keeping a pet human is apparently de rigeur for the wolf with everything. But the flake factor in these tales is pretty high.

On the other hand, the experts generally accept the possibility of so-called feral children--that is, kids living like (if not necessarily with) animals in the wild. More than 50 cases of feral children have been reported, wolf children included.

The best documented case of wolf children involves two girls found in 1920 by an Indian missionary named J.A.L. Singh. The two, later named Amala and Kamala, were supposedly found huddled with a couple wolf pups in an old ant-mound in the jungle near a remote village. They'd earlier been seen with adult wolves; two of these ran off at the time of capture and a third (apparently the mama wolf) was killed.

The children were unkempt, were incapable of speech apart from some inarticulate howling, and in general exhibited animal-like behavior. Typical teenagers, you may think. But no. They also walked on all fours, were indifferent to heat and cold, and lapped up their food like dogs.

Singh and his wife cared for the pair in the orphanage they ran. Amala, who appeared to be about 18 months old when found, died after a year, but Kamala, who was about 8, survived until 1929. It was years before she learned to walk or speak and her vocabulary never exceeded some 50 words.

The credibility of this story has taken a few nicks. In a book published after Kamala's death Singh said he found the children himself, but in earlier newspaper accounts he was quoted as saying they were brought to him--clearly a pivotal difference. Even if the children in fact were found in a wolf's lair, that doesn't necessarily mean they were raised by wolves, merely befriended--no small thing in itself, I suppose. Since even the most hardened anthropologist won't leave a child in the wild for purposes of observation, whether beasts have actually raised humans may never be definitely settled.

Stories of feral children, as opposed to wolf children, have gained wider acceptance. One of the best authenticated cases is the Wild Boy of Aveyron. Discovered at about age 12 digging in a garden in the Aveyron district of France in 1800, the Wild Boy was mute, naked, and seemingly retarded. (Unlike most feral children, he did walk upright.) It was learned he'd been roaming the hills on his own for at least two years, living on handouts from obliging farmers and whatever he could steal. The boy was turned over to a determined doctor named Jean Itard who taught him to dress himself and perform simple chores. But he never learned to speak more than a couple words.

Feral children have long fascinated scientists. Apart from the sheer pathos of their stories, they raise some gut issues: how do we become human? If we fail to learn critical skills as children, is it impossible to do so later?

Most feral children have been severely stunted and remained so all their lives, suggesting that early human contact is essential to normal development. But others believe the children were retarded to start with. The child psychologist Bruno Bettleheim, perhaps not the best of sources, argued that the children were autistic, that is, severely withdrawn. Those unconvinced say no autistic or otherwise incapacitated child could survive in the wild for long.

A 1970 California case suggests the deprivation theory is closer to the mark. "Genie," a more or less normal two-year-old, was locked up by her demented father for 11 years, reducing her to a state of whimpering imbecility. Despite later training her language development never exceeded that of a 5-year-old. Being a wild child may conjure up visions of some Blue Lagoon-type idyll, but the reality is unspeakably cruel.--CECIL ADAMS

Perhaps this is slightly off topic too...but if you put a puppy in a padded room (so it can't hurt itself) does it not know pain once exposed to it? (ie keeps putting its paw in a flame, for example.)

The child wouldn't die, necessarily, but it would be severely underdeveloped in all areas of speech, learning, and motor skills; the child would never be able to catch up to that of a "normal" child's skills in those areas because they would miss the critical period of contact and language growth.

There are many cases, some well-documented others not, of children who were abandoned or otherwise ignored from birth. One girl named Anna in the fifties was locked in a room from birth. She was occasionally given milk to drink and was sometimes cleaned up, but never anything more. She was five years old when she was found and she couldn't walk, talk, or even recognise that people were addressing her.

Another kid was 13 when they found her. She had been kept in a crib for her whole life. The only human contact she received was from her dad and brother who came in and verbally abused her every once and a while. She, too, could not walk, talk or recognise that someone was addressing her. This was in the seventies.

Yet another boy, in the 1800's, was found at the approximate age of twelve. He was wild in his behaviour and had a scar that crossed his neck, made by a very sharp object. They figured, based on the amount of healing, that he was about two when his parents slit his throat and left him in the forest for dead. The cut healed and he foraged for his own food. What was really interesting here was that the kid was impervious to cold. He would play naked in the snow and not even shiver.

There are other cases, too, where kids have been locked up with chickens (portugal 1980's, found at age 13), dogs (south africa, 1980's found at age 2 or3), and cats (1990's, age 6 or7) and the kids acted just like the animals they were caged with.

What all of this goes to show is that humans have no natural behaviours. Everything that we do is learned. If left to our own devices we can't even develop language.

Neat, eh?

Without friendly contact, a baby will become depressed. Depression causes a weakened immune system and when they are young their immune system needs to be strong because there are so many new and dangerous diseases.

Even today, in our modern age, people don't realize the value of simply BEING with your children...holding them, nurturing them, etc. Failure to Thrive is way to common.

I believe parents should pass a test for parenthood....you have to get a license to drive a car, but not have kids....

I agree! Fit for parenthood!

Well, there was this king person who wanted to find out what language babies would speak if they were never exposed to language.

That's funny because i've always wanted to know that very thing.

Heres a site with information on feral childrean and children raised by animals and a list of names of these kids (none older than 15).

http://www.feralchildren.com/en/children.php?tp=0

Okay let me explain this to you.
The was a physcologist who wished to study chimp development. However he could not get accurate data so long as the babies were let with there mothers. This set off a chain of effects in which the focus of the experiments then became studies in the relationships between infants and their mothers.

Okay then. Well this turned up several avenues of research: 'monster' mothers; isolation; and substitutions plus their ramifications. It was discovered that baby chimps don't de well in isolation or without some kind of mother figure. When compared to cases of human infants who were berifted of there mothers it showed in instresting trend. An infant deprived of it's mother will sink into a profound depression which can lead to death as it cause lack of appitite, lowered immune system, etc.

So yes an infant can in fact die without the socio-emotional ties of a mother or mother-like bond between it and someone, something else. Does that answer your question? I have more data or rather information if you'd like it.

The child wouldn't die, necessarily, but it would be severely underdeveloped in all areas of speech, learning, and motor skills; the child would never be able to catch up to that of a "normal" child's skills in those areas because they would miss the critical period of contact and language growth.

Actually the so-called critical period has been shown not to exist. Rather it's more a matter of motivation. Perhaps these persons where not sufficiently motivated to become more 'human' as it were. Honestly I'm a shamed to be human sometimes. All the atrocities we have caused. *Tear* Anyway there have been children who were thought to be retarded and incapable of learning however when placed in a 'positive' enviroment with persons who actually cared for them not the possible data they thrived in their development. So these children were probably never given the correct situation in which to thrive and grow.

Interesting. My question is answered.

I'm thinking Jungle Book/Tarzan right now...

Would babies survive with animal attention/love/caring/whatever?

Yes, there was a program made, I think by the BBC, on children raised by animals, most commonly dogs. There are several hundred recorded cases, the children have no language skils as far as humans are concerned, but can communicate effectively with their "adopted" parents, eg. they can bark and growl to communicate with dogs.

Yes, there was a program made, I think by the BBC, on children raised by animals, most commonly dogs. There are several hundred recorded cases, the children have no language skils as far as humans are concerned, but can communicate effectively with their "adopted" parents, eg. they can bark and growl to communicate with dogs.

That's aweseome. Someone should teach dogs to learn human speak.

^Has been done.

Rair's Raggy?

Found a few resources:

The BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A269840

British University:
http://www.ling.lancs.ac.uk/chimp/langac/LECTURE4/4feral.htm

A Dedicated site:
http://www.feralchildren.com

Hope this is of some use on the raised by animals question.
I'm still looking. I'm sure teh USSR carried out an experiment on a group of orphan babies, and many or all of them died due to "neglect", though they were given food, kept warm etc. I'll see if I can find it.

Wow. No seriously, this is just amazing. All the stuff I hadn't thought I'd ever need to know, and now realize that I don't need to know. Lol.

Seriously, interesting thread. It just goes to show that people online have way, way too much time on their hands, and can find information about any topic, no matter how esoteric.

Best I've found so far is this little story:

'In 1211, Frederick II, Emperor of Germany, in an attempt to discover the natural "language of God," raised dozens of children in silence. God's preferred language never emerged; the children never spoke any language and all ultimately died in childhood' (van Cleve, 1972).

Best I've found so far is this little story:

'In 1211, Frederick II, Emperor of Germany, in an attempt to discover the natural "language of God," raised dozens of children in silence. God's preferred language never emerged; the children never spoke any language and all ultimately died in childhood' (van Cleve, 1972).

wow I'm glad i'm not the only sick mind in all of history