Slashdot Mirror


Why Do Humans Grow Up So Slowly? Blame the Brain

sciencehabit (1205606) writes Humans are late bloomers when compared with other primates — they spend almost twice as long in childhood and adolescence as chimps, gibbons, or macaques do. But why? One widely accepted but hard-to-test theory is that children's brains consume so much energy that they divert glucose from the rest of the body, slowing growth. Now, a clever study of glucose uptake and body growth in children confirms this 'expensive tissue' hypothesis.

30 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. not so fast by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That there is an inverse correlation between brain glucose use and body growth does not imply that the brain's use of glucose stymies the growth until later.
    If that were the case, kids who are overfed carbohydrates would be smarter and taller, not fatter and dumber.

    My guess is that slow growth is selected for because children who look like children enjoy special care and protection by adults. Growing to adult size by age 7 might be detrimental to survival.

    1. Re:not so fast by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, and what makes it even more rubbish is the idea that simply feeding someone more food is enough to change their biochemistry, metabolism, and energy distribution budget towards diverting more energy towards growth and less towards the brain, and that blood glucose levels are determined by dietary carbohydrates.

      But I do enjoy reading the pseudo-intellectual armchair philosophizing that we see so often.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    2. Re:not so fast by Xiver · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can scream this at the top of your lungs until you are blue in the face, but it probably won't make a difference. Explaining it carefully might convince a few people, but not about things they already believe in. Its been said so much that you wouldn't even post it under your username, because you know it will get adversely moderated. People have read it so much they cringe when they see it.

      You'll never be able to convince people that toasters don't cause suicidal tendencies in teenagers.

      --
      10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
      20: GOTO 10
    3. Re:not so fast by Dahamma · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The evolutionary reality is even simpler that that (though the achievement of those is clearly not). The three main factors are:

      1. be able to reproduce
      2. be able to attract/acquire a mate
      3. be able to care for/protect offspring long enough for them to reach #1

      Clearly if it was just up #1 we would still be living alongside the rest of the primates. #2 can be a fairly complex social interaction - but insects are just as capable of it as humans. #3 is where the whole thing explodes, and is the key to investing all of those resources into the brain (and is what made it more evolutionarily advantageous to extend the time to #1 and #2).

      Though of course in modern human society, social and technological advancement in #3 has so outpaced the first two that they barely seem to matter, and is why we are basically blowing past any "natural" population control. Our brains are letting us find clever ways of surviving and stripping the planet of resources, but unless we figure out a way to expand beyond the planet or stop using its finite resources we'll go through the same collapse seen in any other species going through a population explosion...

    4. Re:not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nobody should be allowed to comment on genetics or evolution until they've read The Selfish Gene. While some small parts of it are arguably out-dated, it really helps orient one's mindset regarding evolutionary genetics. The Selfish Gene will survive as an extant and useful work much longer than Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

      Even many biologists should read it. Too many biologists lack rigor when they hypothesize about evolutionary behavior. The Selfish Gene really lays out not only what has been effectively proven about evolutionary genetics, but provides examples of the complex but elegant mechanisms that _new_ evolutionary processes (e.g. group selection) will probably also look like if they can ever be proven.

    5. Re:not so fast by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      growing up fast is what should have been selected.

      Not necessarily. The major threat to children in primitive hunter gatherer societies is not predators but hunger. By staying smaller during their formative years, they reduce the amount of calories need to survive. But the selection pressures are different on boys and girls. Girls are generally able to procreate as soon as they reach puberty. But boys need to wait till they are older, and have built up social status. So it makes sense for girls to mature faster, and that is what happens. Look at a group of kids in 4th or 5th grade, and the girls are several inches taller than the boys.

    6. Re:not so fast by jandrese · · Score: 2

      This doesn't really follow. Animals that suddenly find themselves an abudance of food don't grow massive, rather they reproduce in greater numbers. If food were always highly available then we might select for large size and big brains over time, but any one person with too much food is not going to suddenly become superman.

      I'm not an expert in this, but my guess is that our energy hungry brains are one of the factors in the relatively long development period for our offspring, but it's not the only factor.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    7. Re:not so fast by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not necessarily. The major threat to children in primitive hunter gatherer societies is not predators but hunger. By staying smaller during their formative years, they reduce the amount of calories need to survive.

      This. Also, it takes time to learn the vast amount of information that it takes for a human being to really be smart enough to manipulate its environment... which evolution has obviously selected for. Chimps, for example, often actually outpace human learning for up to 2 years, but then humans continue to learn while the chimp rapidly levels off. Keeping resource use to a low level during this long learning phase is likely a long-term survival trait.

      Also it should be noted that another factor in humans' slow growth is already known: humans can only have babies with brains so big, before birth becomes a very big problem. So a longer period is needed for the human brain to grow to its adult size.

      But the selection pressures are different on boys and girls. Girls are generally able to procreate as soon as they reach puberty. But boys need to wait till they are older, and have built up social status. So it makes sense for girls to mature faster, and that is what happens. Look at a group of kids in 4th or 5th grade, and the girls are several inches taller than the boys.

      It is more accurate to say that boys and girls mature at different rates.

      If you adjust for the probable influence of estrogen mimics in our current environment, human females start to mature sexually before males do, but actually finish their sexual maturation later. You are referring more to social factors than genetic: often males need to be older to establish themselves in order to semi-permanently mate, but that is not the same things as physical sexual maturity needed to procreate.

    8. Re:not so fast by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Every time I shoot you in the brain, you die. But correlation does not imply causation, so it must be some other reason.

    9. Re:not so fast by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2, Informative

      No-one should be allowed to comment on anything if they have read The Selfish Gene. Dawkins is a dangerous hack and a terrible writer. His pop-science books never educate the state-of-the-art, but instead indocrtrinate his view to the exclusion of all others.

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    10. Re:not so fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      RE "Correlation does not imply causation!"

      You are wrong. Correlation does indeed imply causation.

      If you had said "Correlation does not prove causation!", then I would say you are correct.

    11. Re:not so fast by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are referring more to social factors than genetic

      These are not separate factors. Genes influence social behavior, and social behavior influences which genes are selected. In ALL human societies, men prefer women younger than themselves that are physically attractive, which correlates with fertility. In ALL human societies, women prefer men with high social status, and greater resources. It is unlikely that such universally pervasive preferences are purely "social" rather than genetically innate. Chimpanzee males have no preference for younger females, and when given a choice of mates, will prefer older females. Female chimps do not have the same decline in fertility with age that women have, and more mature and experienced females have a greater chance of successfully rearing offspring.

    12. Re:not so fast by Zuriel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      'Imply' means something different in formal logic. You can use this line instead: "Just because two things happen at almost the same time doesn't prove that the first one caused the second."

      The guy who got shot in the brain could have had a heart attack seconds earlier. You still need to do the autopsy to prove that the shot was the cause of death. Yeah, it probably was, but 'probably' isn't proof.

    13. Re:not so fast by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      In the formal logical sense, imply means prove. That comes from its formal logical definition: http://whatis.techtarget.com/d....

      You are using "imply" in a more casual sense, which would be fine if you didn't also call him wrong. Now that you've broken out the weird pedantry, I have to tell you he's not wrong, he's actually perfectly accurate and you're being pedantic.

    14. Re:not so fast by jandersen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You'll never be able to convince people that toasters don't cause suicidal tendencies in teenagers.

      Depends on the toaster, wouldn't you agree? I have had toasters that made me want to kill whoever sold it to me.

      I think, if we take away the hype and the misunderstandins on the part of the article, that what we have here is an interesting observation that does support the theory that brain-growth may be one of the factors determining when we become adults. I don't think it is true, though; it seems to me that the biggest evolutionary advantage we have is, in fact, the prolonged period of brain development and plasticity and the evolution of the family unit that supports a long childhood; this, incidentally, includes the fact that we, as the only species I know of, also live long after reproduction. Having grand-parents who can pass their experience on to the youngest, seems like a huge advantage to me.

    15. Re:not so fast by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

      It takes a long time to teach our kids because the system we have for teaching them is horribly inefficient and has been for thousands of years at this point.

      But it carries on not because it's good but instead because it is so indoctrinated and there is no allowance to try anything radically different. If you try even things like "new math" parents freak out because that's not what they learned.

      In fact, the entire schooling process we have, from primary schools to colleges and post-graduate should be reexamined at every level. Does it make sense to do it this way, or are we doing it this way, effectively spending a third of someone's life on school, only because the system is dedicated to this method?

      Basically, the concepts of college as we know them are at least several hundred years old. Virtually every area of science and medicine and life itself has changed over that time, however we still teach basically the same way. This doesn't make any sense. That process should have changed and evolved like all the others but it largely hasn't. This should be questioned by anyone -are we doing this the right way? Does it make sense? Or is there a better way?

      However everybody currently on the loose was educated that way so they have no incentive to change it for new kids, and of course the educators themselves have little or no incentive to reinvent how they do what they do, and even the parents have no incentive to let their child try a new way that may jeopardize the child's accomplishments compared to other kids -nobody wants their kid to be the first one to never actually have a diploma for something, for example.

      Spending a third of someone's life on schooling years is on the face of it ridiculous. But I don't think this can possibly change. And that's too bad.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    16. Re:not so fast by PPH · · Score: 2

      You can scream this at the top of your lungs until you are blue in the face,

      Not necessarily.

      You haven't proved a causative link between excessive vocalization and having a blue face.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    17. Re:not so fast by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      It takes a long time to teach our kids because the system we have for teaching them is horribly inefficient and has been for thousands of years at this point.

      Until around 1900, within the working class (which generally included lower middle class back then), education was reading, basic writing and arithmetic. A 12 year old - whether boy or girl - was expected to be a productive member of working class society and was often married (12 for girls and 14 or so for boys). Education beyond that was for the upper class (and upper middle class), especially university level education. Extending education through grade 12 (typically age 17 or 18) for (nominally) all young people happen since then.

      When I was 18, I did not hear society complaining that 18 year olds were not ready to be adults. (Yeah, some parents had trouble accepting their kids were 18, but even they did not, in general, feel that 18 year olds were not ready to be adults)

      Now, I hear a lot of complaints about 18 year olds not being ready to be adults (despite an increase in demand to try and sentence kids

      So, what's different? Part of it is inefficiency in the education system. Part of it is that we need to learn more. And part of it is increasing societal demand for over protectiveness - whether by scaring parents or by telling parents "you can't" - or "must not" - let your kids do _____.

      The biological reality is more complex. Teenagers (or more broadly, those from onset of puberty through full maturity) are neither adults nor children. And now, our society has shifted from forcing them to be adults to forcing them to be children. Yet, so many adults wonder why so many of today's 18 year olds are not ready to be adults.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    18. Re:not so fast by arth1 · · Score: 2

      In ALLpatriarchal human societies, men prefer women younger than themselves

      FTFY.

      Do you have an example of a matriarchal society where men do not overall prefer women younger than themselves? It only takes one counter-example to topple his claim, but you need to provide one.

  2. Critical Path by Livius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would speculate that it's simply that, for humans in their eusocial foraging societies, brain development was the priority and there was no point in reaching sexual maturity and adulthood before the brain had developed and the individual had learned enough to be a full member of the community. The brain and the rest of the body are not competing for glucose, the brain is simply the critical path and the rest of the body has no need to develop faster.

  3. Sperm to frogs by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    You have to clean out the pipes every once in a while before the sperm, well, mature.

    1. Re:Sperm to frogs by sillybilly · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lifespan among other mammals is usually short because the required training to make it is not that complicated, unlike in a complex human or even great ape society. By the way the life expectancy of most cavemen was less than 40 years, and compared to horses and elephants, it's not that long. Only in recent times through agricultural and technological advances and good life has life expectancy increased. So this ultra life expectancy of 80 years may not be long because the brain requires it or demands it, but more like the brain allows it, so why not? Having great-grandmothers, grandmothers mothers and daughters together in a village, usually makes for a more successful village where members proliferate marrying into other villages taking their customs of sticking together through the long generations, and having long generations, compared to short lifespan mother-child only structures usually found in the wild, where the grandmother and great grandmother don't participate, and don't make a difference whether they still exist or not.

    2. Re:Sperm to frogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I bet diapers are standard gear in space. You cannot shit properly without gravity.

      Thank God you both have imagination and speculation to help fill in your gaps in knowledge.

      If only someone could invent a vast, searchable information databank that was computer accessible via network where you could answer these inquiries then perhaps you might not be forced to speculate as much. I would call such a thing a CompuNet.

      Oh well, we can dream can't we?

  4. I'm really not buying it by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For most species, childhood is all risk, no benefit (where benefit = breeding), and so it is to be got through as fast as possible (or at least in time for next breeding season). If glucose shortage was the only reason for doubling the length of our childhood, there would be a huge evolutionary pressure towards kids who could metabolize much more food and reach adulthood in half the time.

    There is an obvious reason why humans have such a long childhood - it is because we have so very much to learn. Little bodies can learn as well as big bodies, and cost less to maintain.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  5. Wrong (but still the brain's fault) by penguinoid · · Score: 2

    If it is the brain stealing calories that slows development, how come when you feed a child a high-calorie diet he becomes a fat child rather than a young adult?

    How about this: if we took only three years (or less!) to reach adulthood like some animals, you'd have toddler with an adult body. I'm pretty sure it's actually an advantage that our young are easily restrained. It's actually rather common for more intelligent creatures to take longer to mature. Taking longer to prune the excess synaptic connections seems to allow for greater learning at the cost of slower development. In the case of humans, we're also born with an especially undeveloped brain and a squishy skull, for which your mother is probably grateful.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    1. Re:Wrong (but still the brain's fault) by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it is the brain stealing calories that slows development, how come when you feed a child a high-calorie diet he becomes a fat child rather than a young adult?

      Probably because "stealing calories" is just an over-simplified journalistic bit of fluff.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  6. Humankind and eusociality by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

    humans are not an eusocial species.

    I decided to fact check this claim. Eusociality, according to Wikipedia and the references it cites, is defined as three aspects of the behavior of a species:

    • "cooperative brood care (including brood care of offspring from other individuals)": Daycare is a thing.
    • "overlapping generations within a colony of adults": Grandparents are a thing.
    • "a division of labor into reproductive and non-reproductive groups": Humankind appears to be moving in the direction of breeder vs. thinker classes. More affluent classes already tend to produce fewer children, and the public has become more accepting of a gay lifestyle. Furthermore, I've seen plenty of contempt for "breeders" and other childfree-by-choice advocacy on Slashdot.

    I agree that humans are not as close to the eusocial ideal as bees and mole rats, but we're closer than a lot of other species.

  7. Society also does this.. by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    WE have some wierd fetish with letting kids be kids for as long as possible. Sorry but at 13 you are biologically an adult so you need to have adult responsibilities and adult expectations. these teenagers need to get off their asses and work, build, etc.. Instead we extend this out to age 20 before we expect them to get a job and start being responsible.

    Less than 100 years ago it was not uncommon for marriage at age 16 and that young couple working hard to build their family Average age of a woman getting married was around 21 years of age. Today it is far higher at 26 years of age and insanely uncommon for a 16 year old marriage, Although outside the USA it is far lower. Mexico has a median for women at around 18 years old. Many states in the USA still have the age of consent at age 16. This means that 16 year olds can make decisions as an adult, yet for some reason we think they cant today and are still children.

    Note on marriage ages, some of this is economics, back 100 years ago it was a lot easier to make a living as you made about $35.00 a month working at a foundry or smelter and typically renting a house is $5.00 a month less that 20% of your income was your rent. today most of the young pay 60% of their income as rent and have to split that rent with room mates because they can not even hope to even meet rent with their meager income. So 100 years ago it was easier for young and uneducated to make it in the world with the sweat of their brow.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Society also does this.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "Sorry but at 13 you are biologically an adult s"
      false.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Society also does this.. by prgrmr · · Score: 2

      So many poor assumptions there. The average life expectancy was a lot less 100 years ago: http://demog.berkeley.edu/~and... Consequently, people got married earlier because they died sooner; this goes back through the beginning of recorded history, and it was really only in post-WWI 20th century that marrying while a teenager became not just not the norm, but socially frowned upon. Also, look at the drops in life expectancy in 1918 and 1943; what you are seeing it the effects of both world wars and the spanish influenza epidemic in 1918. So life wasn't just short, it was unpredictably precarious in a very real, life-limiting way.

      While there are definitely observable fetish aspects to the celebration of youth in our current culture, we no longer marry immediately post-pubescent because, for the very most part, we no longer need to as a practical necessity to be able to have family or an otherwise "full life".

      You assumptions on economics are so bad they border on ridiculous. Up until the 1920s, 30 percent or more of the US population were farmers: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/t... And yes, as the percentage of workers in agriculture declined, those in manufacturing rose; however, the real economic differentiator remains education, and that trend has only been slowly improving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...