Aw, it was the 18th century: they lost kids all the time.
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.
They always go for the dirtiest thing in the room. Acquire and share.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.)
> putting some semen and mud on them and disappear into the wilderness
what?
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.
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.
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.
Apparently, I was that was as a baby as well. I handled everything, but only food went into my mouth.