It just seems counter productive for teenagers to be able to have children when they are at the most mentally confused time of a person's life. Why is this possible?
Could it be that we are really at our peak during our teenage years and society has caused this mental confusion?
2006-10-11 09:15:51 · 10 answers · asked by butnozzle 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
Perhaps thousands of years ago teenagers were just as able to look after babies as older people.
2006-10-11 09:17:23 · answer #1 · answered by Jethro 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Biological fitness doesn't take those things into account. If babies born to teenagers had a high chance of dying, then maybe less teenagers would have babies but they don't have any less chance of survival and even then it doesn't mean as a result teenagers would evolve to not be able to have children. Evolution doesn't work that way.
2006-10-11 09:20:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The average age of sexual maturity (when a girl could get pregnant or a guy could father a baby) has been going down steadily over the last 100-150 years. This is usually thought to be caused by better nutrition. Around the US Civil War, it wasn't unusual for girls to be 18 before they got their first period.
Mental maturity hasn't kept up with that change, so kids at the age of 15 biologically might be able to become parents, but mentally they aren't ready to deal with it.
2006-10-11 09:24:14 · answer #3 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing in nature works toward species survival. It may be counter productive to have children at this age, but many things humans are known to do can be termed counter productive. In a gene centered view of natural selection; replication is all. That is why we are such a fortunate species; we can oppose the genes, or at least channel them. Birth control is one of those methods. Remember; we cause society; society does not cause us.
2006-10-11 09:23:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK. Our life spans are WAY longer than they used to be. Back in the day, teenagers were basically considered middle-aged. They were married by then, and at what could be their healthiest. Bearing lots of children was common practice. Just because now a days teens are expected to be immature, does not mean that they have always been.
2006-10-11 09:20:25 · answer #5 · answered by honk2goose 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Originally we didn't survie much past 35 so you would have to start propogating in your teens years in order to have time to bring up children. Also the birht rate survial used to be very low, so this would give you multiple chances for an offspring during your peak physical condition
2006-10-11 09:22:33 · answer #6 · answered by The Cheminator 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have to remember that our life expectancy wasn't that high 200 years or so ago. Our bodies haven't evolved as fast as out culture, and teenagers used to be little adults 100 years ago.
2006-10-11 09:18:48 · answer #7 · answered by The Nag 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the SURVIVAL of the SPECIES, teenagers are best, because their hormones are raging, and they are not always thinking logically.
When you get older and wiser, you may rethink having children, therefore our bodies are thinking,"Get, while the getting is good"
2006-10-11 09:33:44 · answer #8 · answered by red.cancer 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
u already.. answered your question.
" most things " not "everything".
and secondly. not just for the best chance of survival, nature works for the least chance of species survival too. that's why.
2006-10-11 09:20:51 · answer #9 · answered by coldfish85 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
short and real answer, cuz most people in history maybe made to 40 , mostly only to 20 or so.
2006-10-11 09:20:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋