Modeling The Giving Culture to Unborn Babies

It has long been observed in many cultures that what the eyes of a pregnant woman is exposed to during pregnancy tends to rob off the baby in the womb. Hence some mothers consciously avoid ugly or unhappy people during pregnancy. In a similar manner natural genetic imprinting can silence ugly maternal or paternal traits and propagate only the good ones. What this means is that the more dominant characteristics of a pregnant woman’s body and environment can literally be scanned into an unborn baby. Thus mothers have the ability of modeling of future behaviors to their unborn babies.

Studies support the fact that babies born in hostile situations tend to be hostile, while those born in happy situations tend to be happy and caring. In most cultures the first few words spoken by a one-year old, will usually in include, “mine” and “give me”. No parent ever remembers teaching that to his/her one-year old child. Then the question is: “Where did they learn that?” 

Even at the risk of being proved wrong, I would dare say they learned it from their mothers. How? They literally  heard their mothers say the words “give me” over and over during the nine months they were in the womb. Then in antenatal clinics and pregnancy groups where women shared their experiences, every woman started her story with “mine”. 


The natural cravings experienced by women during pregnancy makes them to keep saying, “Give me” this or that. Now, deliberately modifying how women express their cravings could be a key to modeling the giving culture to unborn babies. Just by starting every request with : “Take this” followed by “ and give me that” could totally change the message 
being sent to unborn babies in the womb. A new generation of children whose first words  will include, “Take this” can mean a lot to humanity. 

Many of the ills plaguing societies today can be traced to the predominance of takers over givers. One striking difference between the wealthy and poor nations is that they are predominantly givers and takers respectively. America, for instance, is a predominantly giving nation. Same goes for Britain, France, Canada and Germany. Americans are allowed to deduct charitable givings from their tax returns. 

Charitable organizations are not taxed on funds raised for humanitarian causes. Americans donate money through radio and television campaigns to help suffering or disaster stricken people all over the world. Those who have no cash to offer volunteer their time and skills for the care of destitute and homeless people. Some doctors even go into streets to treat the homeless. During extreme cold or heat, government and private organizations seek out vulnerable citizens and keep them safe.

The poorer nations have little or no humanitarian activities. Even the rich charitable organizations charge exorbitant fees for their schools and services, which their counterparts in wealthy nations offer free of charge. People in poorer nations take from each other and from their public funds. 

Nobody offers free services to the needy or volunteers for free community services. Bribery and corruption is the norm. Personal and public insecurity drives individual behaviors. As stated already this attitude to life can be traced to the fact that most citizens are born takers, without any giving cultural background.

Changing the craving language of pregnant women in poorer nations, may not be easy, but having more discussions about the need for it will be a step in the right direction. The hope of a better tomorrow is something no nation can ever afford to give up.

No comments:

Post a Comment