4 ms·

I mostly agree, except... > The other approach is to say they died too young from injury, starvation, or infections. Had they lived longer they too might have

I mostly agree, except... > The other approach is to say they died too young from injury, starvation, or infections. Had they lived longer they too might have contracted more of our degenerative diseases. This is a stretch. Those people who were lucky enough not to die of communicable diseases or predators just happened to be the ones genetically superior in the sense that they didn't suffer as much from degenerative diseases? I doubt it. The lifestyle (plenty of exercise, and not eating too much, or too much processed/extracted foods like sugar and hydrogenated oils in everything) theory is much stronger. I don't doubt, though, that some nutrients have been bred out of crops inadvertently while domesticating them (making them easier to grow, breeding variants that produce more food, making the color or taste more appealing). And some less common varieties of crops are probably closer to the pre-domesticated varieties and are therefore healthier.

ZeroFries 11y ago
You misunderstood him. You can't die from alzheimer's at 80 if you died from malaria at 72, is what he's saying.
- Retric 11y ago
  Assuming early death was fairly random then the number of people living to 70+ may have been much smaller, but the survivors would probably not differ significantly from the overall population. However, I don't think we can find a lot of actual evidence to support one interpretation over another. PS: It should be noted that due to low human birth rates disease and accidental death really can't kill over that high a % of the population each year. 90% survival change per year = 28% of people reaching 12 years old which is far from sustainable. 95% survival chance = 54% live to 12 which is at the edge of sustainable. ~.95 ^ 75 = 2% which would suggest 2+% of the population should hit 75 assuming a steady rate of accidental / disease related deaths. (Which is unlikely) Granted, real world death rates do increase after puberty, but even still a significant portion of preindustrial society was likely over 70. Barring a strong exponential population growth rate.

ZeroFries 11y ago

You misunderstood him. You can't die from alzheimer's at 80 if you died from malaria at 72, is what he's saying.

Retric 11y ago
Assuming early death was fairly random then the number of people living to 70+ may have been much smaller, but the survivors would probably not differ significantly from the overall population. However, I don't think we can find a lot of actual evidence to support one interpretation over another. PS: It should be noted that due to low human birth rates disease and accidental death really can't kill over that high a % of the population each year. 90% survival change per year = 28% of people reaching 12 years old which is far from sustainable. 95% survival chance = 54% live to 12 which is at the edge of sustainable. ~.95 ^ 75 = 2% which would suggest 2+% of the population should hit 75 assuming a steady rate of accidental / disease related deaths. (Which is unlikely) Granted, real world death rates do increase after puberty, but even still a significant portion of preindustrial society was likely over 70. Barring a strong exponential population growth rate.