Evolution works by conserving traits that carry value for the species, but more often it is perceived as “survival of the fittest” or in “social darwinism”. These are literary licences: scientifically, they are close to misinformation. A look at the Grandmother Effect will show you why.
Before Homo became sapiens, after the end of the turbulent Plio-Pleistocene era, there was little food that human juveniles could gather by themselves. Mothers had difficulty gathering the essentials for them all and, as a consequence, the number of children declined markedly. That was the very time human females started deriving value — therefore selective advantage — by remaining active and robust longer, much beyond their reproductive function. In time they became grandmothers who took care of grandchildren and allowed their daughters to have a bigger family. This led to the development of a sustainable, flourishing population, which soon underwent concomitant evolution in cognitive and social abilities.
Human females thus became the only species with a long life span beyond menopause. No other primate has that: chimpanzee live for 60 years on average, but only five years after menopause. In contrast, humans have a fertility function for less than half the total life span. This schematic diagram by James G. Herndon, an American primatologist, shows the stunning uniqueness of the human species:
Why did no other primate end up acquiring the same benefit of a long postmenopausal robustness? Because this would have required the concomitant resistance to aging that humans did develop through unique cognitive and social improvements. These important elements, which occurred randomly, provided an advantage, a value that was retained by natural selection.
We can see this advantage continuing in our time, but resistance to aging is now aided not so much by evolution, but by medical technology and other life improvements. Is this longevity of some value to humanity, as the Grandmother Effect had in evolution?
In the 21st century, old age — that is the age when one no longer contributes to society at large — is a delicate subject. But we can ask if, besides family attachments, we could reimagine grandparents as economic assets, rather than liabilities. Ordinarily, the assets they hold will one day pass to the next generation, on average 60 years old, who in turn may leave them to their children, by then past middle age.
This happens while housing crises ensure many young people have no hope of ever owning a place of their own, since inflation and other economic/fiscal forces push prices beyond their capacity to pay. Are we doing anything for the large number of young people whose prospects are this grim?
Why not skip a generation? Today’s X?
They have had a rather easy life in many ways, with the ratio house-price/income so much lower; with the complexity of life so much more manageable; without being obsessed and getting tripped by technology. Gen X are now in a settled, mature condition. They have probably paid out their mortgage and can relax, but their children will need help.
Skipping gen X away from the Boomers’ inheritance in favour of their children could be an option that would free them from that parental obligation and allow them to spend, invest or donate what they earned while working in a lucky, predictable world. It would probably be more rewarding and fair than making their children privileged by banking them early on.
Wouldn’t life be easier, and accountants less busy, if grandmother — add grandfather and stir — put the grandchildren directly on her will and, after a polite agreement with gen X, left them her principal asset, her house?
I can see grandchildren suddenly acquire a new perspective, even if the material happening is down the road. Their psychology relieved, they can plan differently: abandon that course of study taken only because it opens up the potential of lucrative earnings, even if it means slaving until midnight. That course has probably little to do with their own inclinations, with what their genuine self is capable of. They could have time to try what they are good at.
Many young people would no longer be led by the need to save stringently for a deposit, then having mortgage nightmares, and bathing in a culture of material envies. Money would no longer have exclusive power on their life.
But this would probably involve complex tax, and the need for a specific policy of incentives.
Alex (Alessandra) Pucci obtained degrees in science from Pisa and Florence universities, a PhD. (medical research) from The University of Sydney; Biotechnology pioneer and entrepreneur; Business Woman of the Year 1986; AO for services to Science and Industry; Centenary Medal; Member of Science and Technology Councils, including the one attached to the PM&C; Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering; Author of “The Scientist: A short Essay and Two Stories (2012), “DEVOLUTION: The Young Self in the Face of Technology” (2018) and “Arguably Prescient” (2024).