Something I've been thinking about lately. I have a 5 year old and a 3 year old child. Beyond that I don't have a whole lot of experience with children.

I'm wondering - at what age could a human child become self sufficient - to where it could survive in the wild (ie how many years).

How has that number changed due societal leanings? (in the year 100 what would the answer have been (speculation, obv) or in the year 5000BC?

This question is probably obvious - but I don't know the answer - are there other animals with similar length 'infancy'?



disclaimer - I have no agenda. I am not attempting to prove any kind of a point - or even make some kind of a point. This is just a question that's been bouncing around my head for a few months - and I don't know the answers - so thought I would solicit others' opinions.

There have been <5 year olds raised by wolves.

In poor countries, orphans under that age have survived as well, but their "nature" is different and survival may come from charity, theft, or just rummaging.

Much depends on the weather, availability of clean food and water, and local predators.

Baby birds are fairly helpless as are a lot of baby mammal predators and rodents, although they reach self sufficiency much faster.

The child might be self sufficient, but would probably only genetically be human lacking lots of elements of humanity.
I think it would also depend on the gender of the child.

**** i couldn't even be self sufficient in the wild.

Which may or may not be an improvement...

Why?

My 8 year old would be a regular Robinson Crusoe.

My 12 year old would be dead in about 2 days.

Both boys. So it depends greatly on the individual, obv.

I agree with the gender comment. My little girl would curl up into a ball and cry until she was eaten by a bear.

If there is plenty to eat and drink, and not cold, and no predators? Who knows? Under ideal circumstances, maybe even a one year old? They'll live, if they eat and drink. With time physics and brains develop. Brains: not developing well, but maybe sustaining life.

But there probably isn't that kind of place in nature, anywhere. And the little child would probably wander away from the favorable place, and get lost, when not hungry or thirsty. Maybe a 5-7 year old could have the smartness to survive in a place close to paradise. If it was a contained area, for example an island, it would help. Probably depending strongly on the individual. Preferrably one who don't take great risks or gets into deep despair, inherently.

When thinking more about it: nature is harsh. Tough to survive alone anywhere, even for a grown up. I was probably thinking about scenarios, where a child fictively is alone in some agricultural setting.

Metabolism, maturity and size, strength and intelligence come to mind for gender equations.

Not really before puberty. If anything, girls are ahead of boys.

I never said boys would be more likely than girls.
Depending on environment, the gender difference would matter. I don't think this is overtly controversial; young children will develop in different ways which will suit better environments, and a large portion of development will depend on gender

Good thoughts so far - thanks.

I guess one thing left out of the equation is "training" - animals train their young in what types of food to eat, etc - so though an animal might go solo at around the age of 1 year (or less) - they've been given some basic information.

So I suppose training would play into it somehow. A 5 year old with no outdoor knowledge have no clue what to eat (in terms of plants etc)

Just saw a book snippet in google books that breaks down animal infancy cycles into "helpless, dependent, immature and mature" which seems a much better way to break it up / define things

You could totally, given 4-5 years of intensive "training," make a 5 year old self sufficient. But this is so environmentally contingent as to be absurd. For instance, where is this putative child? Country, city? Suburbs? Edge of a farm? Tropics? Temperate? There are many different skill sets one might differentially use.

So basically, I think the question reduces to "how long from birth would it take to teach an individual enough to survive under x conditions?"Which would then reduce to "how precocious are humans?" To which the answer is "not very, in the grand scheme of things."

Dead in like 3 days.

That said, I watched a 12-year-old build a 20-foot crabbing boat essentially on his own last weekend. He looked more serious and responsible than me.

At what age would a human adult be self sufficient in the wild? Most would die pretty fast just because they couldn't adapt.

A more interesting question to me is, if child labor/work was not illegal, at what age would children be able to produce enough resources to sustain themselves through trade by being involved in the division of labor? I think 5 or 6. Maybe sooner.

But as others pointed out, it's really more individual-dependent.

I disagree that a 5 or 6 yr old could sustain a job. Even in countries with child labor, rarely does a child work <7

Approximately 32, if the parents are lucky.