English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Looking at all the facts, the species Homo Sapien (human) seems to have the longest record by far for tending/raising their own offspring.

Most animals in the wild only 'put up' with their children until they are sexually mature.

Humans can sexually mature anywhere from 9-15 years of age.

How is it then, it that case, that:

1) We keep raising our children so much longer than biologically necessary?

2) Most women become fertile again either immediately or soon after giving birth, which suggests that our biological law requires us to produce one offspring at least once a year. How on Earth would a single human (or even a partnership of humans) raise and tender to all of their children if they had at least one every single year?

2007-11-01 00:30:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Biology

7 answers

There are many reasons for this.

First, human babies are *unusually* helpless, and for a longer time after birth, than many if not most other mammals. One reason for this is the unusually large head of human babies (as compared to other animals) ... our heads have grown faster than the birth canal of the female pelvis, and as a result, human babies are born "early" and cared for longer.

Second, as SoShyFyi said quite correctly, humans are an amazingly *social* animal. And so the raising of children goes beyond biological needs to helping our youngsters meet *social* needs.

Third, what constitutes "maturity" in a human is complicated by our enormous brains. In our species we can reach sexual maturity before we have reached mental maturity ... which is the defining characteristic of an adult human.

Finally, when you put the strong *social* characteristics of humans together with their unique *mental* characteristics, we have something new and unique to humans ... namely *cultural* issues. And these go way beyond *biological* issues. Specifically, this idea of sheltering our young well into adolescence is driven by fairly recent cultural changes. Even as little as a few hundred years ago, children were expected to start contributing to the family unit at a very early age.

2007-11-01 00:53:08 · answer #1 · answered by secretsauce 7 · 2 0

In primitive societies the female can find a new mate and another cave every year if the tigers are gone. We can't get the mortgage paid off in nine months. Man has to develop a special use for the wandering male eye and the immoral old lady. Secret control groups were developed with a secret vocabulary. Some winner circles are restricted and can control sex . There has to be rules to prevent every one from doing this. Churches were invented and mortgages were needed so the secret groups can have a lot of fun until they want to leave town. Then all hell breaks loose. The children have to be housed until they can buy a house with a mortgage is all. Well you explain it better.

2007-11-01 04:42:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Most women are not immediately fertile after giving birth if they are breast feeding. Before bottle feeding and artificial birth control, breast feeding was a natural birth control that could normally last at least 2 years and possibly up to 4 years. In "primitive" societies natural breast feeding keeps a female from getting pregnant again right away and allows more time for raising each child.

2007-11-01 02:14:37 · answer #3 · answered by Joan H 6 · 0 0

Actually a lot of different animal live in social/family groups. Elephants and gorillas and other primates spring to mind.

And a woman's fertility is much reduced in the time after birth if she breastfeeds, as nature intended. In fact breastfeeding has been described as "nature's family planning" reducing the frequency of producing new offspring to one every 2-3 years.

As happens in large families, and in primate social groups, the older children help raise the younger ones.

2007-11-01 02:36:14 · answer #4 · answered by Cathy T 5 · 0 0

1) It might be the fact that we live so much longer today. In the middle ages, a woman of 20 was considered an old maid. But then, back then, a person who lived into his 40s was venerable.

2) You forget though. Long ago, kids were put to back-breaking work early...these kids would have been busy making their parent's lives easier, so it would have been *better* to have a larger family back then. Try that today, and the whole shooting match ends up on Jerry Springer.

2007-11-01 00:50:31 · answer #5 · answered by Wally M 4 · 0 0

We have evolved into a social species. Our actions and lifestyles are based on social customs instead of biological reasons.
If it was a social custom to follow our biological law and have one child per year, I'm sure we'd also adjust our lifestyles to allow for the care of the children. You also have to allow for the fact that we aren't physically expected to produce a child a year, the biological law is allowing for miscarriages and death and was more necessary when lifespans weren't so long.

2007-11-01 00:40:12 · answer #6 · answered by SoShyFyi 3 · 2 0

As somebody who has been on the two factors i could desire to respond to. As customary i could have greater say yet if you consider that i'm the Dad it wasn't a lot greater. by way of fact the bread-winner it unquestionably had much less say. assorted it got here from an feeling of being the guy who comes down from the air conditioned workplace onto the save floor and telling the different individual how stressful we are all working. genuinely if I had a say, which comprise i think of our young ones could be ingesting in good shape, it fairly is the customary to often has to do all the artwork when you consider that i replaced into in basic terms there for one meal an afternoon.

2016-10-03 02:10:01 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

you have answered your own question , what age , really , can be put on any kind of maturity , let alone sexual ?

2007-11-01 00:33:54 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers