Have you read the Goodness Paradox? It also talks about the rise of neoteny but in the context of reduced aggression. His theory is a little darker - negative selection pressure on aggression through capital punishment 😬.
Going back to the relatively accelerated development of Neanderthal infants: I read that this would have placed significant energy costs on the mom (more or fattier breast milk production.). Any thoughts on that relative to Sapiens? Would there have been some advantage to us to reducing the burden on the mom? I also wonder if there were any differences in when babies were typically born. If a baby is born during a relatively lean time when mom’s breast milk is less abundant or lower calorie, everyone would benefit from lower calorie needs.
Great questions! I don’t know the answers, but I can venture a few guesses. Some people think Neanderthal breastmilk would have indeed been richer in fat, protein, and calories. So, heavier burden on mom.
Why reduce the burden? It could be part of an evolutionary ‘energy budgeting’ strategy (which enabled the slower growth rate). Maybe this enabled human mothers to have more babies over their lifetimes. It could also make alloparenting easier. It’s harder to offload your baby on grandma when it needs a constant supply of energy-dense breastmilk.
And I think your last idea is onto something. A slower growth rate and associated lower caloric needs (of both mom and baby) could buffer against lean seasons, and kind of ‘decouple’ infant survival from seasonal things.
Have you read the Goodness Paradox? It also talks about the rise of neoteny but in the context of reduced aggression. His theory is a little darker - negative selection pressure on aggression through capital punishment 😬.
Going back to the relatively accelerated development of Neanderthal infants: I read that this would have placed significant energy costs on the mom (more or fattier breast milk production.). Any thoughts on that relative to Sapiens? Would there have been some advantage to us to reducing the burden on the mom? I also wonder if there were any differences in when babies were typically born. If a baby is born during a relatively lean time when mom’s breast milk is less abundant or lower calorie, everyone would benefit from lower calorie needs.
Haven’t read the book, but heard about the ideas.
Great questions! I don’t know the answers, but I can venture a few guesses. Some people think Neanderthal breastmilk would have indeed been richer in fat, protein, and calories. So, heavier burden on mom.
Why reduce the burden? It could be part of an evolutionary ‘energy budgeting’ strategy (which enabled the slower growth rate). Maybe this enabled human mothers to have more babies over their lifetimes. It could also make alloparenting easier. It’s harder to offload your baby on grandma when it needs a constant supply of energy-dense breastmilk.
And I think your last idea is onto something. A slower growth rate and associated lower caloric needs (of both mom and baby) could buffer against lean seasons, and kind of ‘decouple’ infant survival from seasonal things.