Evolution has given humans a huge advantage over most other animals: middle age | Hacker News Reader

Evolution has given humans a huge advantage over most other animals: middle age

washingtonpost.com

41 pointsjamesbritt10 comments

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.

But while things like technologies change quite quickly I would argue that the methodologies that sit around these technologies develop a lot slower.

Also while I understand that this is technology site there are many skills today that don't require passing on knowledge of specific computational technical knowledge, and I would argue in the future this would also be true.

There are also simplifications. We don't spend years in training how to throw a spear well or use a bow and arrow or blowgun, we don't spend years learning how to make needle and thread from plants and bone, nor sew animal hides, we don't memorize long oral poems, we don't cure our own leather, we don't learn the best ways to store ice for the summer, nor how to ride and keep a horse ... I think you get the idea.

Even in the sciences, we don't learn Euclid's Elements but instead learn trigonometry, we learn evolution, so have a single unified field of biology instead of multiple independent disciplines of botany, anatomy, etc., we have solid state devices so few of us know about vacuum tubes.

('We' here of course is meant in the general sense. There are still people who learn the intricate details of flint knapping, or learn ancient Greek to read the Elements, or any one of these topics.)

So yes, there are limits, but either 1) we reached those limits long ago, and solved it by diversification in individual rules, or 2) we are nowhere close to them for our cultural requirements.

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.

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.

Children share half your DNA.

Grandchildren share 0-1/2 your DNA, in a normal distribution around 1/4

Similar values and distributions happen for great and great-great grandchildren centered on 1/8th and 1/16th respectively

This is due to the randomness associated with the chromosome from you or your co-parent being randomly selected.

A grandchild exceptionally like you might be almost 1/2 your DNA

Unfortunately, the accelerating returns of technology (particularly in computers) means there's limits to imparting specific technical knowledge to the next generation.

I'm not sure how true that is, if you're interested in getting the best results as efficiently as possible.

Knowledge is not the same as understanding. You can know many facts, but if you lack the context to see why they are significant, how they relate to each other, and what you can do with that knowledge, how much is it really worth?

Moreover, there is far more information that is freely and immediately available in the age of the Internet than any human being could learn in a lifetime, or a thousand lifetimes for that matter. There was too much in a single library for any individual to read it all many generations ago. Knowing what knowledge matters to you and what you can skip over and leave for others to learn is very important, and that requires some form guidance and collective wisdom.

Older and wiser generations can help the young to find their path and achieve that understanding, so that those younger generations can perhaps achieve the same level of thinking a little sooner and then have time left to go further than their forebears.

However, computers may be a "new thing" and there may not continually be such game changing things so for instance, the current computer generations may actually know a good bit of what our grand and great grand children will need to know and value.

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.

> 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.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com