▲ 1137 ▼ But I am mighty!! (sh.itjust.works) submitted 1 year ago by bees@sh.itjust.works to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago (3 children) On the other hand, what bullshit is it that my stupid human body can't survive being outdoors without medicinal cream. My ancestors would be ashamed. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) Mud and henna masks and other full skin coverings are extremely common among indigenous people and presumably your ancestors as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago We also used to have much more hair, shadowing the skin from sun permalink fedilink source parent [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Your ancestors had melanin production to fit their sun exposure and seldom lived past 40 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Maybe tens of thousands of years ago, but 2000ish years ago 60ish was old age. The main reason life expectancy has gone up isn't that old people didn't make it to 50, it's that young people didn't make it to 2. If a couple has 5 kids, 3 of them die as toddlers and the other two make it to 70 the average life expectancy is about 30, but that doesn't mean living past 30 is unusual. Also, tens of thousands of years ago there was an ice age, but for the last 10k years light-skinned Europeans still had normal summers and worked in the fields. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes, that is when we evolved permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) You must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group. Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths. The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time. What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime? permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago And only then? permalink fedilink source parent [–] sowitzer@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago Speak for yourself. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Your ancestors didn't shave permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago I don't either, but my nose isn't hairy and it would burn to a crisp outdoors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) Mud and henna masks and other full skin coverings are extremely common among indigenous people and presumably your ancestors as well. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago We also used to have much more hair, shadowing the skin from sun permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago We also used to have much more hair, shadowing the skin from sun permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Your ancestors had melanin production to fit their sun exposure and seldom lived past 40 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Maybe tens of thousands of years ago, but 2000ish years ago 60ish was old age. The main reason life expectancy has gone up isn't that old people didn't make it to 50, it's that young people didn't make it to 2. If a couple has 5 kids, 3 of them die as toddlers and the other two make it to 70 the average life expectancy is about 30, but that doesn't mean living past 30 is unusual. Also, tens of thousands of years ago there was an ice age, but for the last 10k years light-skinned Europeans still had normal summers and worked in the fields. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes, that is when we evolved permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) You must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group. Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths. The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time. What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime? permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago And only then? permalink fedilink source parent [–] sowitzer@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago Speak for yourself. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Maybe tens of thousands of years ago, but 2000ish years ago 60ish was old age. The main reason life expectancy has gone up isn't that old people didn't make it to 50, it's that young people didn't make it to 2. If a couple has 5 kids, 3 of them die as toddlers and the other two make it to 70 the average life expectancy is about 30, but that doesn't mean living past 30 is unusual. Also, tens of thousands of years ago there was an ice age, but for the last 10k years light-skinned Europeans still had normal summers and worked in the fields. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes, that is when we evolved permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) You must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group. Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths. The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time. What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime? permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago And only then? permalink fedilink source parent [–] sowitzer@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago Speak for yourself. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 year ago (3 children) Yes, that is when we evolved permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) You must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group. Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths. The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time. What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime? permalink fedilink source parent [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago And only then? permalink fedilink source parent [–] sowitzer@lemm.ee 1 point 1 year ago Speak for yourself. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) You must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group. Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths. The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time. What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group. Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths. The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time. What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group. Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths. The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time. What would be killing people much past their "prime" and how do you define prime? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Your ancestors didn't shave permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago I don't either, but my nose isn't hairy and it would burn to a crisp outdoors. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago I don't either, but my nose isn't hairy and it would burn to a crisp outdoors. permalink fedilink source parent
