[stcredzero]

Redundant Array of Inexpensive Descendants

Here's my evolutionary "Just So Story" for why human kids like to wander away and put things into their mouths. Basically, they acted as food tasters for the group. Makes sense, since the group has invested in them the least, they know nothing important, and in a state of nature, they're likely to die anyways.

[orf]

Having a kid back then was a huge investment, no? The mother is weaker for half a year, eats more and could die in childbirth

[stcredzero]

Having a kid back then was a huge investment, no?

Yes, but the same investment was made in every other member of the group as well. However, everyone who made it well past childhood had a lot more knowledge, food, and material invested in them.

[woodpanel]

While I chuckle reading your explanation I think you forgot to consider how much nursing is deeply ingrained in our nature by us being mammals.

> in a state of nature, they're likely to die anyways.

So while this part, where they would die if left alone, is certainly right, it would make the whole concept of us humans not laying eggs, putting some semen and mud on them and disappear into the wilderness an evolutional waste of time.

Plus, I have some acquaintances whom I suspect would very much prefer to go about their business that exact same way. So it's not a demand side problem either.

[stcredzero]

So while this part, where they would die if left alone, is certainly right

Where did I say that the babies would be left alone and abandoned? Apparently you are unaware that in human communities with low technology, infant mortality can be pretty high alarmingly. You're also apparently stating that parents looking after children is not a "state of nature." (Or you're ascribing that to me, which, given you're alone in this, indicates you need to work on reading comprehension.)

[grkvlt]

> make the whole concept of us humans not laying eggs, putting some semen and mud on them and disappear into the wilderness an evolutional waste of time.

> putting some semen and mud on them and disappear into the wilderness

what?

[pavlov]

I suspect eating insects also provided meaningful additional nutrition for toddlers.

[rusk]

Not to mention developing the immune system.

They always go for the dirtiest thing in the room. Acquire and share.

[MisterOctober]

Indeed! Insects actually provide a non-negligible food source for many people today. Example : Chapulines

[stcredzero]

More evidence the behavior is adaptive!

[nyolfen]

that would select against the kids most enthusiastic about putting unsafe food in their mouth

[stcredzero]

It would, however, select for the most attentive mothers. However, a kid discovering a heretofore unknown poisonous plant would be a benefit. So too, would a kid discovering a heretofore unknown edible thing.

[laumars]

We have a pretty good understanding of why kids put stuff in their mouths and it’s more about exploration and their mouths being more centre of their sensory experience at younger ages. But the following link explains it better than I could:

http://drgailgross.com/parenting-families/why-does-my-8-mont...

Anecdotally, my daughter didn’t have this behaviour. Even at a very young age she’d only ever put food stuff in her mouth. However I’ve seen so many other kids, children of friends and relatives, put random objects in their mouths to know that my daughter is the exception to the rule.

[tim333]

That explanation is a bit circular along the lines that kids like putting things in their mouths because they like putting things in their mouths. As to why we've evolved that way it's probably to build the immune system. It needs exposure to stuff in the environment to figure what to react to. The increase in asthma and allergies in the modern world is probably because kids don't get enough dirt exposure and then the immune system overacts later.

[laumars]

> That explanation is a bit circular along the lines that kids like putting things in their mouths because they like putting things in their mouths.

That's not what the article says at all. It says most of the babies sensory experiences are oral because they lack mobility to explore things with other tactile senses. Granted the article doesn't example this specifically but a lot of sensory input will be suckling (dummies, mother's nipple / bottle's teat, their own digits, etc).

By the time they're a bit more mobile and can open their hand to grasp objects (remember the ability for a baby to even open their hand takes a few weeks to learn) happens, they've often already gotten into the habit of exploring the world via their mouths.

It doesn't say it in that article I linked to, but I do vaguely recall reading elsewhere that because babies develop tactile senses on their hands later than the senses in their mouth, babies will often have more nerve endings in their mouth. However I cannot find a source for that so this might be a detail I'm miss-remembering.

[stcredzero]

We have a pretty good understanding of why kids put stuff in their mouths and it’s more about exploration and their mouths being more centre of their sensory experience at younger ages.

Cool. So long as you're not conflating evolutionary pressures with internal mental states, drives, and desires. Doing so would mean you're dipping into Lamarckianism.

[laumars]

I don't understand why you posted that because thus far you're the only person who's suggested it's an evolutionary trait.

[fatnoah]

>Even at a very young age she’d only ever put food stuff in her mouth.

Apparently, I was that was as a baby as well. I handled everything, but only food went into my mouth.

[benj111]

But kids don't like bitter things (like cabbage), to stop them eating potentially poisonous things, that's what I understood anyway.

Plus try and get a 2 year old to try new things.

Is this something you've observed on teething children? They tend to chew things to ease the pain.

[MisterOctober]

Damn fine hypothesis. Juvenile mortality is naturally really high from the get-go [not just for humans, but practically all life forms] -- why not have them engage in the most high-risk experiments? I think that's brilliant.