Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (15023)	2/14/2002 7:44:12 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

Actually the older person who is most valuable to the survival of long-lived species is the grandmother. For example, take a look at elephants. It's true for humans, too. They are back-up caretakers for the young, and remember where to find food. Remember the young in long-lived species like humans and elephants remain relatively helpless for much longer than other species. So while the mothers are caring for the young infants, the grandmothers are caring for the older infants. I don't think evolution knows how to hang onto grandmothers without keeping grandfathers. However, the fact that grandfathers are able to reproduce is very unfortunate. There is no ecological advantage to human children if the man who sires them vanishes. Siring lots of descendants and running away or dying works for animals that can fend for themselves relatively fast. Humans, like elephants, with their extended period of helplessness, need as much protection and nurturing as they can get. There is probably a reproductive advantage to a man fathering a child by the mother of a mated couple - however, the fact that it happens in a minority of situations means it's less advantageous to the child than monogamy or polygyny. Fathering a lot of human children, most of which die, is bad for the children. Maybe it's good for the father, because sperm are cheap. But it's also bad for the mother, because eggs and pregnancy and child birth and child rearing are expensive. I don't see how a reproductive strategy can evolve that is bad for the mother and bad for the children. I think it makes more sense that a male of high reproductive capacity is one who is capable of protecting and helping feed numerous pregnant and breastfeeding women and infants, not one who runs off and abandons them. The historically short life expectancy of humans - less than 40 years - suggests that there is no genetic advantage for reproducing after 40. We just have better food and medical care than we did when we evolved.