title: On the evolution of intergenerational division of labor, menopause and transfers among adults and offspring.
abstract: We explain how upward transfers from adult children to their elderly parents might evolve as an interrelated feature of a deepening intergenerational division of labor. Humans have a particularly long period of juvenile dependence requiring both food and care time provided mainly by younger and older adults. We suggest that the division of labor evolves to exploit comparative advantage between young and old adults in fertility, childcare and foraging. Eventually the evolving division of labor reaches a limit when the grandmother's fertility reaches zero (menopause). Continuing, it may hit another limit when the grandmother's foraging time has been reduced to her subsistence needs. Further specialization can occur only with food transfers to the grandmother, enabling her to reduce her foraging time to concentrate on additional childcare. We prove that this outcome can arise only after menopause has evolved. We describe the conditions necessary for both group selection (comparative steady state reproductive fitness) and individual selection (successful invasion by a mutation), and interpret these conditions in terms of comparative advantages.
authors: Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, National Taiwan University, Taiwan. cyruschu@gate.sinica.edu.tw
authors: Chu C Y
authors: CC
authors: Cyrus
authors: Ronald D
authors: RD
authors: Lee
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D032721:Adult Children; D005075:Biological Evolution; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008593:Menopause / Q000523:psychology*; D008954:Models, Biological; D009154:Mutation; D012098:Reproduction / Q000502:physiology*; D012919:Social Behavior
keywords: Group selection; Individual selection; Intergenerational transfers; Life history; Optimal
references: Hum Nat. 2006 Mar;17(1):1-49
references: 26181344
references: Theor Popul Biol. 2006 Mar;69(2):193-201
references: 16406044
references: Theor Popul Biol. 2012 Dec;82(4):364-76
references: 22326750
references: Biometrika. 1945 Nov;33:183-212
references: 21006835
references: J Theor Biol. 2010 Mar 21;263(2):219-26
references: 19962386
references: Theor Popul Biol. 2004 Jun;65(4):339-51
references: 15136009
references: Nature. 1998 Apr 23;392(6678):759, 761
references: 9572132
references: Theor Popul Biol. 2008 Mar;73(2):171-80
references: 18178233
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Jul 23;99(15):10221-6
references: 12122210
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2009 Nov 7;276(1674):3863-70
references: 19692401
references: Popul Dev Rev. 2013 Feb;38(Suppl 1):23-35
references: 23667275
references: Methods Ecol Evol. 2011 Oct 1;2(5):446-453
references: 22081792
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Aug 5;100(16):9637-42
references: 12878733
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010 Aug;1204:30-42
references: 20738273
references: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 Nov;79(4):733-50
references: 15682868
references: Theor Popul Biol. 2012 Dec;82(4):355-63
references: 22699007
references: Bioessays. 2001 Mar;23(3):282-7
references: 11223885
references: Evolution. 1995 Dec;49(6):1055-1066
references: 28568528
references: Science. 2009 Sep 4;325(5945):1196-9
references: 19729633
references: Theor Popul Biol. 1974 Feb;5(1):104-22
references: 4818403
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 May 20;105(20):7124-8
references: 18458325