
Grandparents raising children is in line with human biology - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/36/aging/what-good-is-grandma
======
sunstone
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.

~~~
Erik816
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.

~~~
LionessLover
> it was likely much shorter on average

The average includes a huge number of deaths of children and of mothers though
- not counting those risks (childhood, especially the very early one, and
giving birth) it's higher than most people think. In a lecture on microbes
([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-
the-m...](http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-the-microbes-
how-infections-are-once-more-taking-over)) the professor mentions as an aside
that a late Victorian British citizen after excluding those risks actually had
a slightly longer life-expectancy than a modern British citizen! While that is
fairly recent it still is long before modern medicine and antibiotics.

Quote:

> And what is interesting, if you take out the childhood mortality, the
> Victorian person between 1850 and 1880 lived slightly longer, if he was a
> male, than you do today.

("if he was male": giving birth was very risky)

So it seems that good food (variety plus enough of it) and hygiene did most of
the job of extending life-expectancy outside the above two risks - and modern
medicine very significantly lowered childhood and birth (mother) deaths. In
the light of such evidence modern medicine does _not_ seem to have had a great
effect on life expectancy once you made it past childhood. We can't do
anything against "aging".

~~~
Erik816
I am talking about 2 million years ago, not 2 hundred.

------
SlashmanX
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.

~~~
baldfat
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.

------
Turing_Machine
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?

~~~
oh_sigh
Sure - bonobos and other chimps for example

~~~
SolarNet
But considering our evolution from similar ancestors, that may have been a
quirk our evolution ended up expanding on.

~~~
oh_sigh
True, but you can at least say that whatever mutation/genetic set responsible
for it did not occur uniquely in humans

------
jonmc12
In a recent article "Why Aging isn't Inevitable"
([http://nautil.us/issue/36/aging/why-aging-isnt-
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."

------
smegel
How do you write an article like this without some level of cross-cultural
analysis, especially regarding Asian and Chinese culture in particular?

Bizarre.

~~~
jessaustin
You don't find the Hadza colorful enough? It's not as though contemporary
Chinese culture contradicts TFA's hypothesis.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Rather the opposite.

    
    
        妈妈生，外婆养，外公天天菜市场，
        爸爸回家就上网，爷爷奶奶来欣赏。

~~~
zhemao
Haha, I haven't heard that piece of doggerel before. Where's it from? It
sounds like my cousin. She just recently had a kid but it's mostly my aunt who
takes care of the baby.

Also similar to what my early childhood was like before we moved to the
states. Except my maternal grandfather passed away shortly after I was born
and there was no internet back them.

I think the funniest thing is that it suggests that the modern Chinese family
is uxorilocal when it's traditionally been virilocal.

~~~
thaumasiotes
It was told to me by a Shanghainese woman.

The same woman said that often the grandparents will move in with the parents
to care for a child, rather than the other way around.

~~~
zhemao
Ahaha, I knew it. My family is Shanghainese, and I was born and spent the
first three years of my life there, so that makes sense.

------
galois198
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.

~~~
mchaver
Wouldn't the biological assumption be that the grandmother was raised by her
grandmother?

~~~
gohrt
That should lead to bizarre even/odd generation effects, as two parenting
traditions interleave.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Don't we get that already, conservative generations beget liberal generations
who beget conservative generations, etc.; it seems that way at least?

------
golemotron
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?

~~~
i_cannot_hack
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.

~~~
golemotron
> I promise you there's no feminist under your bed.

Actually, there is one. He's very noisy.

------
baldfat
Foster / Adoptive Parent here:

> 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
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).

------
w__m
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
>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..

What's not better than kindergarten?

------
known
Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.

