Firstly, the core of the theory is that grandparents were able to pass on their wisdom and knowledge to future generations, thereby contributing to our species advancement. These contributions would have ranged from medicinal or survival skills and judgments that take a long time to master. If you want to know how the evolution would take this into account, I can hypothesize that since long life has a strong genetic factor to it, clans that had long living members in them survived better than those who did not. This is how and why humans live so long, especially past the reproductive age.
Very clearly stated.
I accept that elders, generally, have a potentially huge role to play in families and tribes. Even if the single function... serving as the institutional memory of the group... is the only potential advantage tribal elders provide... that's probably enough to justify the argument they add value. Not repeating mistakes others have already made... in a function preserved over longer periods of time than only within the limits of the experience gained within the active reproductive years... should be obvious as a source of benefits.
I don't think it a hard case to make that a family or tribe with "better" quality elders, and a wider ranging intellect paired with memory, will tend to enable the greater overall success of the group. You could extend the issue to include groups that function better... those that are more successful... will be those that do a better job of selecting quality elders as leaders... who are better in that role than those of competing tribes, and therefore confer competitive advantages. That would necessarily include a component element in the relative costs (and thus relative survival advantage) to the group of winning the benefit available from preserving sages. Oldsters that enable that benefit... who also aren't a drag on others production... would add relatively greater advantage.
But beyond seeing the logic (even the obvious truth) in it... how do you make the connections back to actual proofs in the genetic elements ? I'm not dissing the concept... but will instead gladly point out that the socio-biological components necessarily put under study in answering the questions would bring in lots of interesting things to study... as it forges links between basic elements in human genetics and larger issues in the society: questions of the genetic basis (and the logic and obvious truths) in things economic, and in the organization of society.
It brings up for consideration a lot more than smaller scale units in the social impacts... and lots of potential for errors... as obvious things (like span of control issues) can't and shouldn't necessarily be generalized from smaller scale to larger scale functions.
My skepticism of the genetic basis... isn't a skepticism of genetics... but of the error in seeking "exact" answers in genetic explanations... when the genetic contribution is unlikely to be determinative in any specific rather than enabling in ranges in capacities... with environmental variables being the determinant in expression... the switches if you will. That makes genetics a more sophisticated and subtle rather than less important driver of more adaptive behaviors.
I tried to address that focus issue in other areas... as in the "ranges in variations" over time that you see in other genetic / biological / sociobiological issues... like the behaviors that drive booms and busts in the economy... the rising and falling of hem lines... and the changing timelines in the age of puberty and childbearing... things that are clearly, and strongly, correlated with genetics... but not in terms of genetics dictating "an age for puberty" rather than "a range of ages... depending on variable factors in changing environmental circumstances, including social and cultural factors".
But, already, there's much more worth exploring there. Before we had writing, or print... much less digital media... the shared and sustained basis of culture was transmitted not only through the shared routines of daily life, but through oral history... memorizing and re-telling stories over generations... and we revered our elders as leaders then because of their experience and their ability to apply their memory to solving problems others hadn't the depth of experience to address ? And, today ? Greta Thunberg... instead ?
Should make the point about how quickly this becomes political...
That fact, alone, should be a red flag warning in terms of the proper amps to be applied in the skepticism... given the concern that political agenda might easily overshadow reason... as we see too often in science, now, in many other spheres.
The second argument there was that as the population is choosing to have kids later in life today, and because men fathering children in later years have much greater mutations in their sperms, the nature of evolution itself maybe changing.
And, now we're back into the ridiculous... which isn't saying it isn't true that older parents face greater risks... rather than pointing out the silliness of thinking "evolution itself" is changing only because of some variable within a range that is seen as changing now.
"Fat" times and "fast" times generate faster generation rates... younger parents having more kids... and lean times and a more constrained social and cultural environment... slows things down and stretches out the generational cycles... Not irrational to think that is adaptive... to swap faster rates in gene transfer for higher rates of variation in individual contributions... But, that's all still just the same old in how nature does things... not Nature suddenly changing her spots because of something we may not fully perceive about how things work ?
Real science... is about observing to see how things do work. That's not about seeing some change occur and thinking that must mean "we've altered the way nature works"... because hem lines are falling again.
Evolution has been working just fine... all along... and hasn't suddenly discovered the Beatles and gone all wonky...
Side note - evidence, going back to before neolithic age shows that humans were unique in caring for their elderly (and believing in god/afterlife). Such evidence includes (but not limited to) survival of old members who did not have teeth. Which means someone must have chewed the food for the elderly and fed them (another side note, some have theorized this is the origin of kissing).
I'll sustain vastly more skepticism for anthropologists than geneticists... as much of what they "determine" to be true seems it has roughly the same scientific validity as divination by casting bones...
It's even laughable to the degree popular culture mocks it... as in everything they find is immediately made a proof of some religious iconoography or ritualistic usage. Apparently, in pre-history, humans were so busy inventing spiritual behaviors and leaving religious artifacts for us to find... that there was no time left for practicalities...
|
