• Agent641@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Back when we lived to the ripe old age of 38.

    (Im kidding, I know that was mostly due to infection and whatnot)

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 months ago

      The ‘age of 38’ thing isn’t even due to infection ir disease, or even a thing at all. 38 was the average between the high number of infant deaths and the normal lifespan of someone who didn’t.

      Ok, women giving birth skewed it a bit too. Men didn’t die in battle as much as people think, since most battles were decided when a small portion of the losing side died and the rest fled.

      • MBM@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Do we have numbers for the hunter-gatherer time that can even be skewed by infant deaths?

        Edit: as it turns out, yes, absolutely. Wikipedia says the lifespan is around 21-37 years but 57% died before 15 and 64% of those that don’t would also reach 45.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeah, mid twenties to mid thirties tends to be the peak of human health and physcial fitness which would be true no matter what conditions are, so it would make sense that disease, accidents, and other trauma would be far less fatal during those ages.

      • MBM@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Do we have numbers for the hunter-gatherer time that can even be skewed by infant deaths?

        Edit: as it turns out, yes, absolutely. Wikipedia says the lifespan is around 21-37 years but 57% died before 15 and 64% of those that don’t would also reach 45.