Would the human race be more advanced if we couldn't reproduce until our 50s?

[OCGuy]

We would have become extinct ages ago. Typical life-spans before civilization were under 30 years of age. With huge infant mortality rates as they were, and a very small select few individuals living to age 50, the population would have died out.

Right but I was thinking more like humans evolving to this. We are already evolving due to not needing to chase down food. Getting fatter/slower/less muscle mass.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science...t-not-what-they-used-to-be-20090805-ea31.html

 

[eldorado99]

I don't mind if I'm still reproducing at 50, but since women can't do it at that age, its okay if they have to be much younger than me, I won't mind. :sneaky:

 

[Meghan54]

So we'd wind up with a disconnected and discontent set of young adults, and that's the type of population that tends to create social unrest and chaos, engage in wars, etc.

Ummm.....from some of the crap that's posted around here, I think we're already at that point.

 

[BoomerD]

Fuck that. I was grumpy enough with kids when I was in my 20's and 30's.

Now that I'm in my 50's, I can't stand kids...and certainly don't want to raise any. Having my grandkids live with us for a year reminded me how much I dislike kids.

GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN!!!

 

[BlueAcolyte]

You know... We learned in bio class that women don't get more eggs as they age. So those that have been sitting there for 50 years have a pretty good chance to come out with down syndrome or other genetic disorders (Funny shit happens when you delete chromosomes).

 

[techs]

Actually, the fatties and druggies may be a genetic pool that is higher in intelligence, creativity, or some other positive genetic trait.

You never know.

So, if you realy want to go down the path of eugenics there's a lovely little example for you to emulate.

 

[OCGuy]

Actually, the fatties and druggies may be a genetic pool that is higher in intelligence, creativity, or some other positive genetic trait.

As funny as Chris Farley and John Belushi were, we wouldnt have missed them.

What you are calling "eugenics" I am calling "natural selection". Im not asking if we should mandate that you have to wait to reproduce, I am saying what if our bodies evolved so that was the case.

 

[Modular]

I had one of those chemically enhanced philosophical debates one night where I suggested that teens/twenties should be having kids and their parents should be the ones raising them.

Basically on the concept that then the birth parents can focus on life and making the world a better place. And all those people past their intellectual/productive prime would be able to focus fully on rearing children.

It would rely on society fully accepting and integrating the idea. But in theory the best time to have children is when the female's body is young and fertile and their eggs haven't spent years being exposed to environment and toxins with the potential for mutations. But that is also the time when you have the most potential to kick ass in the world.
If you spend the first 40-60 years of your life becoming financial successful and making the world a better place, you could then spending the remaining years raising children and having that joy, but also the advantage of experience and the lack of other commitments.

The Hispanic culture is really all about this model already. There are typically multiple generations in one household. The grandparents stay at home and watch the kids while their parents are out working and paying the mortgage/bills.

IMO, this would be a fantastic way to live life. It would significantly cut down on generational debt as each family wouldn't need to buy a different house, and would probably result in a better rearing of the children. There's no way that a day care center does a better job than grandma at watching the little ones.

The only issue is that you would need a larger home for larger families (people will always need their own space). However, if there were 3 or 4 families living in the same 8-10 bedroom home for a generation or so, it would be the best way to build wealth as well. It's mostly a Western idea that we all have to go out and forage our "own ways" and to be frank, it doesn't bode well for the mental stability of people in our country.

 

[EarthwormJim]

Right but I was thinking more like humans evolving to this. We are already evolving due to not needing to chase down food. Getting fatter/slower/less muscle mass.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/science...t-not-what-they-used-to-be-20090805-ea31.html

Conversely, those three attributes (or distributes) can achieved through life styles, not necessarily genetics.

There's certainly little to no selection processes going on now days, so the individuals with poor muscle mass will survive and breed.

I disagree about the whole getting fatter due to our genetics changing. The individuals who were able to put on the most fat in the shortest amount of time had the best chance of surviving prior to civilization essentially. A naturally skinning individual would starve to death if there was any catastrophy with their food supply.
Basically we're left with a society that does not need to put on weight fast, but because our ancestors did need that attribute to survive, it's easy for us to balloon out.

In order for us to breed at age 50 like you were suggesting, I don't see how that could have really happened, and for us to be human then. There would be a very strong selection process for non-risk taking individuals, since they'd have to survive such a long time to be able to breed. Any lineage that had strong risk taking characteristics, would die off the second one of those risks didn't pay off (say venturing down from the trees to eat bone marrow instead of plants and getting eaten instead?). We'd probably still be living up in the trees where it's safer.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Uh, females aren't viable at age 50.

Questionable on health of male sperm.

Tell it to the 70 year old woman.

 

[Matthiasa]

Tell it to the 70 year old woman.

It also almost killed her, the babies, and she still needed to have surgury for that to happen anyways.

 

[tcsenter]

Uh, females aren't viable at age 50.

At least not without assistance.

Questionable on health of male sperm.

This. The quality or integrity of DNA in sperm starts a gradual decline in the 30s. But if we could freeze men's sperm and women's eggs when they were 18, then prevent them from using it until they were in their 40s, we could have the best of both worlds. Better, more competent parents with children conceived from nice young sperm and eggs.

Sounds a little "Logan's Run" ish, though. Utopian Engineering.

 

[Matthiasa]

Um one becomes a better parent by raising kids.
Someone who is 40 when they have their first kid is just as competent as someone in there teens when they have their first kid, with that kid.

 

[tcsenter]

Um one becomes a better parent by raising kids.
Someone who is 40 when they have their first kid is just as competent as someone in there teens when they have their first kid, with that kid.

Not at all. Had I started having kids at 18 or 20, I would have fucked them up for life. I was hot-headed, arrogant, knew little about the world beyond my own little corner of it or the example that my parents had set (which was OK for the most part but not great), supported corporal punishment a lot more for more scenarios than I do today, had little understanding of child development issues, physical and mental health issues, what constitutes a dysfunctional relationship or home life, and the list goes on.

I have no kids, have never taken care of children other than infrequently for an afternoon or something. Granted, people will not necessarily take an interest in any of these things just because they gain an additional 20 years of adulthood before children, but often, they do. Even had I not been interested in any of these relevant subjects, my emotional maturity and amount of patience is VASTLY better than it was 20 or even 15 years ago.

 

[JTsyo]

The Hispanic culture is really all about this model already. There are typically multiple generations in one household. The grandparents stay at home and watch the kids while their parents are out working and paying the mortgage/bills.

IMO, this would be a fantastic way to live life. It would significantly cut down on generational debt as each family wouldn't need to buy a different house, and would probably result in a better rearing of the children. There's no way that a day care center does a better job than grandma at watching the little ones.

The only issue is that you would need a larger home for larger families (people will always need their own space). However, if there were 3 or 4 families living in the same 8-10 bedroom home for a generation or so, it would be the best way to build wealth as well. It's mostly a Western idea that we all have to go out and forage our "own ways" and to be frank, it doesn't bode well for the mental stability of people in our country.

It's not just Hispanics, most of the non-western world is like that. Even in the US extended families were the norm until the nuclear family took over. Of course not everyone can have their parents stay with them since parents have multiple children.

I think there might be an issue of giving up your lifestyle after 30 years of living without kids. Think of how hard it is for some to settle down already and put their twenties behind them. Though I guess if the biological clock started ticking at 50, people would still have kids.

 

[MJinZ]

Fuck that. I was grumpy enough with kids when I was in my 20's and 30's.

Now that I'm in my 50's, I can't stand kids...and certainly don't want to raise any. Having my grandkids live with us for a year reminded me how much I dislike kids.

GET THE FUCK OFF MY LAWN!!!

What happened to kids between having no kids and grandkids....