
Evolution has given humans a huge advantage over most other animals: middle age - jamesbritt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/evolution-has-given-humans-a-huge-advantage-over-most-other-animals-middle-age/2012/03/12/gIQAtVnccS_print.html
======
6ren
Larry Niven's _Protector_ extrapolates this role of middle-aged grandparents.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector#Narrative_purpose>

Unfortunately, the accelerating returns of technology (particularly in
computers) means there's limits to imparting specific technical knowledge to
the next generation. But some things change more slowly that can be: human
nature, emotions, communication, competitive advantage, mathematics, and
general problem-solving techniques.

Wisdom, with long-term value, is worth acquiring.

~~~
rsheridan6
Grandchildren share 1/4 of your DNA, great-grandchildren share 1/8, great-
great-grandchildren share 1/16. From an evolutionary point of view, there are
diminishing returns to helping your descendants, even if your knowledge
remains relevant.

~~~
Silhouette
_From an evolutionary point of view, there are diminishing returns to helping
your descendants, even if your knowledge remains relevant._

That is true in a sense, but it assumes that the only thing that matters are
the physical characteristics and basic instincts propagated by DNA. Arguably
the thing that makes us the dominant species on the planet today is our
ability to propagate our way of thinking, our collective knowledge and wisdom,
our goals and aspirations.

These influences also get diluted over time in each individual descendant, of
course, but on the other hand to some extent these are more about the culture
and the collective group rather than any individual. The number of individuals
influenced by a particular ancestor tends to increase with each generation. As
a species we actively select our mates based partly on compatibility in these
respects. And as the article itself notes, there is a role for older
generations in nurturing members of younger generations other than just their
own direct offspring, which would tend to include influencing the offspring's
mates and further generations.

So I'm not sure it's entirely fair to say that there are diminishing returns
with each generation. It is more that the influence becomes more spread out
and tends to affect culture rather than any one individual, and those whose
ideas are recognised as benefitting the wider group more effectively will tend
to retain more influence for longer.

------
msabalau
It is true, as the article correctly points out, people often misinterpret
average life expectancy, because they don't fully take on board the impact of
child mortality.

That being said, the "grandmother hypothesis", that our ancestors gained
evolutionary advantage in taking care of grandchildren seems to be a matter of
some contention still, with some experts taking the view that no one survived
to be grandparents.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> some experts taking the view that no one survived to be grandparents.

Wouldn't this imply that most parents, then, died before they saw their
children reach puberty? (I admit to knowing nothing about the social dynamics
of ye olde anciente humanse; I'm just assuming that once you're of biological
age, you become incredibly likely to get knocked up.)

