For those who are skeptical consider this. Human females (and males) are reproductively capable at 15 and yet who would consider them mature and capable parents at that age?
On the other hand women have a difficult and increasingly difficult time getting pregnant from late 30's onward. And yet most women of that age would be very capable parents.
What is the evolutionary explanation that the optimal physical age of reproduction is so skewed compared the optimal emotional age of reproduction?
It just doesn't make sense unless young parents are not the primary caregivers to their children.
Or it's as simple as the fact that modern society treats people as children well into their 20s. Would I take a 15 year old american high school girl/boy as a mother/father? No.
Would I take a 15 year old girl in a tribal village as mother? Sure, why not?
The reason I'm skeptical is because this article assumes our social constructs have meaning.
It also assumes that these constructs are the more favorable outcome in increasing mankind's "fitness", than a mutation that gives women more than 400 eggs.
It explains this away by saying evolution perfectly timed menstruation to allow for raising the last child to adulthood coinciding with your average-est old age of 70. It must be further hypothesized and explained how natural selection could have codified this time traveling foresight into the genome, before even beginning to leap to that conclusion, while simultaneously acknowledging other mammals don't have this "feature", while simultaneously acknowledging that kidneys don't just give out at age 45 in a kidney menopause process, or lungs, or other organs. The article inadvertently makes the greatest case that the reproductive system breaking itself is a flaw, and tries to extrapolate why that would it is a feature, and why it is the best possible feature, when a best possible feature according to their time traveling genome theory, would be an adaptive amount of eggs in each woman based on their genetic fitness, instead of 400.
Consider that modern life is very different from the vast majority of evolutionary history that framed how we developed. In a modern, affluent society, a 50 year old woman would have little problem successfully raising a newborn. On the African Savanah, would that same 50 year old woman do just as well? Or would she on average find that she could not raise her children as well as the 20 year old mothers? I'm guessing the latter.
Life was not as easy and it was likely much shorter on average. In a more primitive society, if a newborn's mother dies, that newborn probably has very low survival odds. Older women could definitely still have played an important role in raising children in the context of the family/tribe, but I see clear evolutionary advantages to having your children while younger, because you are simply more likely to be alive to raise them.
Technically speaking females are fertile before that. Then, humans are much more fragile compared to other species after birth and require extra care. This is because as the head volume increased, they had to be born ahead of time otherwise they couldn't make it through the "birth canal".
Now, anatomically modern humans do not differ much from humans over 10,000 years ago. Parenting back then was basically bring food and keep predators away, not studying and getting higher education and getting a job to provide to your family. Modern lifestyle doesn't have to do much with what is good biologically: oocyte quality peaks on early 20s and decreases with age.
There's actually a situation in Ireland at the moment where grandparents were looking after their grandchild for the past 4 years or so due to the mother having mental issues, but the foster system took the child away because the grandparents are too old (60 year age gap). This is despite school principals and doctors etc saying they were perfect for the child and moving him away from them would be severely detrimental to his development. Really sad to see.
In the States it is based first on biological lines. If the parents are capable to take care fo the children and are in their late 70s the state will keep the children there with them.
It's also suggestive that human grandparents are famously concerned with the well-being of their grandchildren. This is, I think, about as near to a cultural constant as there is. Yeah, there's probably some weird culture where grandparents don't get involved, but I can't think of one offhand. Certainly it's true for all the European and Asian cultures with which I'm familiar.
I can't think of another species where grandparents take a special interest in their grandchildren (as opposed to, say, a generic interest in the young of the herd as a whole). Are there any?
In a recent article "Why Aging isn't Inevitable" (http://nautil.us/issue/36/aging/why-aging-isnt-inevitable), the author suggested that the the "Grandmother Hypothesis" sounds reasonable, "but a number of demographic researchers have found that when they do the numbers, it’s hard to make it work".
He suggests an alternate theory: "An older, “retired” segment of the population, we argued, serves to keep the population stable over cycles of feast and famine."
I've always thought that grandmothers babysitting their grandchildren is somewhat unfair - in effect they're raising kids twice. They should have a rest in their later years.
That logic doesn't hold if every generation of parents has their parents raise their children. You get to have your kids and have your parents do a lot of the hard work. Then when your kids have kids you become the primary caregiver.
Regardless of whether everyone has their parents act as their children's caregiver or whether they act as their own children's caregiver as long as every generation does the same you are only primarily responsible for raising one round of children. Its just a matter of whether you do it when you are younger or older.
I find it exquisitely humorous that the article title is "What Good Is Grandma?", it speaks only about grandmothers and female biology, yet it is posted here as "Grandparents raising children is in line with human biology"
That's one level of PC beyond the site's addition of the subtitle: 'The growing role of grandparents in raising children is right in line with human biology" for an article that, again, is solely about female biology.
When will the reality of sex-based differences be presented unapologetically?
It is taken right from the subtitle of the article, probably as that was a lot more descriptive than "What Good Is Grandma?". It also had to be shortened to fit within the 80 character limit.
It was probably not carefully constructed to eradicate the notion of sex differences.
Furthermore, the current trend the article refers is a trend where more and more grandparents are raising children, not solely grandmothers, which explains the wording.
It's funny how paranoid people get when it comes to political correctness. But you don't need to worry Golemotron, I promise you there's no feminist under your bed.
> Today’s grandparents are doing exactly what their biology has prepared them for.
Prepares for them to take care of their children's child due to their inability to care and protect their own child? This paper/article doesn't talk about the biology/evolution influence of how so many people don't care for their own off spring. I have had children who's grandmother took a knife to her (Her mom was off in the world of drugs), while I had my future son (He had terminal cancer) the father beat the biological mother to death with a baseball bat, and I have had a biological uncle one block from my house and he never once came to even see his nephew (The father (his brother) was less then 200 miles away and never saw his son past year 4).
I get the argument but there is plenty of reasons of equal importance in asking why so many parents are giving way to grandparents in child rearing.
We have a Foster System due to the inability of Grandparents to take care of the children. If they could the system would be 10% of what it currently is today.
Another solution, besides the natural one of bringing grandparents back into the equation, for solving overworked parents, could be larger mixed age family units, e.g. polyamory (to preempt, you use the same incest rule as for existing parents, no marrying your children).
I can totally agree. Humans are most fertile around early twenties, but as a young (23) parent I'd say it is not the best age to actually raise children.
We're impatient. We have much "explosive" energy, the kind not really suitable for watching a newborn for hours.
We can now have beautiful and very healthy babies easily, but Grandma is way better sitter than us for most of the day - more experienced, more calm, comfortably retired by now :) And I do belive it is the natural way.
Better than kindergarten.
>not really suitable for watching a newborn for hours //
Traditionally you'd put the baby in some sort of sling/papoose/carrier and do pretty much what you'd normally do but with extra breaks for feeding etc.. Children learn by seeing and imitating, in a few years they can be productive parts of the family/tribe.
IME children need lots of energy put in to their upbringing. My kids ages span a decade - I'm far less able to give the youngest the active upbringing I feel he needs than I was for his older siblings.
Mind you in this sort of scenario there would be much shared responsibility and lots of people to carry/teach/feed/entertain/etc..
[+] [-] sunstone|9 years ago|reply
On the other hand women have a difficult and increasingly difficult time getting pregnant from late 30's onward. And yet most women of that age would be very capable parents.
What is the evolutionary explanation that the optimal physical age of reproduction is so skewed compared the optimal emotional age of reproduction?
It just doesn't make sense unless young parents are not the primary caregivers to their children.
[+] [-] oh_sigh|9 years ago|reply
Would I take a 15 year old girl in a tribal village as mother? Sure, why not?
[+] [-] cloudjacker|9 years ago|reply
It also assumes that these constructs are the more favorable outcome in increasing mankind's "fitness", than a mutation that gives women more than 400 eggs.
It explains this away by saying evolution perfectly timed menstruation to allow for raising the last child to adulthood coinciding with your average-est old age of 70. It must be further hypothesized and explained how natural selection could have codified this time traveling foresight into the genome, before even beginning to leap to that conclusion, while simultaneously acknowledging other mammals don't have this "feature", while simultaneously acknowledging that kidneys don't just give out at age 45 in a kidney menopause process, or lungs, or other organs. The article inadvertently makes the greatest case that the reproductive system breaking itself is a flaw, and tries to extrapolate why that would it is a feature, and why it is the best possible feature, when a best possible feature according to their time traveling genome theory, would be an adaptive amount of eggs in each woman based on their genetic fitness, instead of 400.
[+] [-] cabalamat|9 years ago|reply
Evolution would.
[+] [-] Erik816|9 years ago|reply
Life was not as easy and it was likely much shorter on average. In a more primitive society, if a newborn's mother dies, that newborn probably has very low survival odds. Older women could definitely still have played an important role in raising children in the context of the family/tribe, but I see clear evolutionary advantages to having your children while younger, because you are simply more likely to be alive to raise them.
[+] [-] partycoder|9 years ago|reply
Now, anatomically modern humans do not differ much from humans over 10,000 years ago. Parenting back then was basically bring food and keep predators away, not studying and getting higher education and getting a job to provide to your family. Modern lifestyle doesn't have to do much with what is good biologically: oocyte quality peaks on early 20s and decreases with age.
[+] [-] sjclemmy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SlashmanX|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baldfat|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Turing_Machine|9 years ago|reply
I can't think of another species where grandparents take a special interest in their grandchildren (as opposed to, say, a generic interest in the young of the herd as a whole). Are there any?
[+] [-] oh_sigh|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonmc12|9 years ago|reply
He suggests an alternate theory: "An older, “retired” segment of the population, we argued, serves to keep the population stable over cycles of feast and famine."
[+] [-] smegel|9 years ago|reply
Bizarre.
[+] [-] jessaustin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] galois198|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyjdavis|9 years ago|reply
Regardless of whether everyone has their parents act as their children's caregiver or whether they act as their own children's caregiver as long as every generation does the same you are only primarily responsible for raising one round of children. Its just a matter of whether you do it when you are younger or older.
[+] [-] mchaver|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golemotron|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] golemotron|9 years ago|reply
That's one level of PC beyond the site's addition of the subtitle: 'The growing role of grandparents in raising children is right in line with human biology" for an article that, again, is solely about female biology.
When will the reality of sex-based differences be presented unapologetically?
[+] [-] i_cannot_hack|9 years ago|reply
It was probably not carefully constructed to eradicate the notion of sex differences.
Furthermore, the current trend the article refers is a trend where more and more grandparents are raising children, not solely grandmothers, which explains the wording.
It's funny how paranoid people get when it comes to political correctness. But you don't need to worry Golemotron, I promise you there's no feminist under your bed.
[+] [-] baldfat|9 years ago|reply
> Today’s grandparents are doing exactly what their biology has prepared them for.
Prepares for them to take care of their children's child due to their inability to care and protect their own child? This paper/article doesn't talk about the biology/evolution influence of how so many people don't care for their own off spring. I have had children who's grandmother took a knife to her (Her mom was off in the world of drugs), while I had my future son (He had terminal cancer) the father beat the biological mother to death with a baseball bat, and I have had a biological uncle one block from my house and he never once came to even see his nephew (The father (his brother) was less then 200 miles away and never saw his son past year 4).
I get the argument but there is plenty of reasons of equal importance in asking why so many parents are giving way to grandparents in child rearing.
We have a Foster System due to the inability of Grandparents to take care of the children. If they could the system would be 10% of what it currently is today.
[+] [-] SolarNet|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w__m|9 years ago|reply
We're impatient. We have much "explosive" energy, the kind not really suitable for watching a newborn for hours.
We can now have beautiful and very healthy babies easily, but Grandma is way better sitter than us for most of the day - more experienced, more calm, comfortably retired by now :) And I do belive it is the natural way. Better than kindergarten.
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|9 years ago|reply
Traditionally you'd put the baby in some sort of sling/papoose/carrier and do pretty much what you'd normally do but with extra breaks for feeding etc.. Children learn by seeing and imitating, in a few years they can be productive parts of the family/tribe.
IME children need lots of energy put in to their upbringing. My kids ages span a decade - I'm far less able to give the youngest the active upbringing I feel he needs than I was for his older siblings.
Mind you in this sort of scenario there would be much shared responsibility and lots of people to carry/teach/feed/entertain/etc..
What's not better than kindergarten?
[+] [-] known|9 years ago|reply