5 ms·

My understanding is that, ignoring infant mortality, life expectancy for paleolithic humans was around 50 years. Does it not follow that the genetic fitness ar

My understanding is that, ignoring infant mortality, life expectancy for paleolithic humans was around 50 years. Does it not follow that the genetic fitness argument can only work if you're some way below that age? The article doesn't seem to address this at all. Disclosure: I know next to nothing about this subject so I appreciate my argument may be naive to the point of laughable.

peter303 11y ago
There is the curious case of human menopause and grandmothers. Most species procreate young until death. But humans specifically have woman productively live raising grandchildren 10-20 years after losing fertility. Not quite sure when this evolved, but over a hundred thousand years ago. I think one of Goodall's original female chimps is still popping them out every 3-4 years at age 50, if I am not wrong.
- panglott 11y ago
  IIRC, one of the main differences between human and chimp behavior towards infants is that human parents are willing to allow other humans, even strangers, to handle their infants. Chimps never allow this, because other chimps even within the group will kill the infants.
1stop 11y ago
Well that would be relevant if paleolithic humans died from cardiovascular disease or physical injury caused by exercise. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case, and they died of things that are completely solved now (hence our longer life expectancy).
- toyg 11y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that isn't the case That's great! Where can we read the detailed data you have? Nothing is "completely solved". Even the plague is still around, we just avoid it by washing ourselves more -- something you wouldn't do if you followed along with the idiotic notion that what we did "before" was better. It wasn't. People likely died of cardiovascular disease same as today, there was just more competition among "things that could kill you" than there is today. This state of things changed because we stopped doing what we were doing "before".
- lucozade 11y ago
  That's not quite what I meant. My point is that, if only a small fraction of the population survived past, say, 65 for 8000 generations, we're unlikely to be genetically pre-disposed to anything much that optimises for long term health. It just wouldn't make genetic sense. So a regimen that focuses on what is good for our paleolithic selves strikes me as being probably only coincidentally helpful for anything much beyond a healthy 20s or 30s. TBH it's not obvious why we would be genetically optimised to survive much beyond child rearing age, say, mid 30s to early 40s but, again, I don't know enough about paleolithic society to make anything other than a superficial case. I'm also not arguing against the likely health benefits of daily exercise etc. Long term or otherwise. Just against the genetic case that uses the "what was good for our ancestors" argument.
  - ucaetano 11y ago
    Actually, there is a genetic advantage for having old people who can't procreate. In societies, having old people to take care of infants frees young people's time to either obtain resources or procreate more.
    - VLM 11y ago
      Also the extensive education and experience hunter gathering requires is all in the old people's heads. "I'm young and strong but starving" vs "Before you were born I was killing wild deer down in that obscure valley you overlooked, now you and a couple kids head out there, and drag some meat back for the rest of the tribe, also we're dying of thirst and I used to play in a freshwater spring in that other valley as a kid" "Ah yes that is a very attractive looking mushroom to a hungry youngster, but I regret to inform you that 37 years ago one looking exactly like it poisoned my great aunt when I was just a kid like you"
ap22213 11y ago
Not sure about Paleolithic, but this source claims average lifespan for hunter gatherers at 70 years. Not bad considering one gets to hang with their friends and family, have low stress, work less. http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...

peter303 11y ago

There is the curious case of human menopause and grandmothers. Most species procreate young until death. But humans specifically have woman productively live raising grandchildren 10-20 years after losing fertility. Not quite sure when this evolved, but over a hundred thousand years ago. I think one of Goodall's original female chimps is still popping them out every 3-4 years at age 50, if I am not wrong.

panglott 11y ago
IIRC, one of the main differences between human and chimp behavior towards infants is that human parents are willing to allow other humans, even strangers, to handle their infants. Chimps never allow this, because other chimps even within the group will kill the infants.

1stop 11y ago

Well that would be relevant if paleolithic humans died from cardiovascular disease or physical injury caused by exercise. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case, and they died of things that are completely solved now (hence our longer life expectancy).

toyg 11y ago
> I'm pretty sure that isn't the case That's great! Where can we read the detailed data you have? Nothing is "completely solved". Even the plague is still around, we just avoid it by washing ourselves more -- something you wouldn't do if you followed along with the idiotic notion that what we did "before" was better. It wasn't. People likely died of cardiovascular disease same as today, there was just more competition among "things that could kill you" than there is today. This state of things changed because we stopped doing what we were doing "before".
lucozade 11y ago
That's not quite what I meant. My point is that, if only a small fraction of the population survived past, say, 65 for 8000 generations, we're unlikely to be genetically pre-disposed to anything much that optimises for long term health. It just wouldn't make genetic sense. So a regimen that focuses on what is good for our paleolithic selves strikes me as being probably only coincidentally helpful for anything much beyond a healthy 20s or 30s. TBH it's not obvious why we would be genetically optimised to survive much beyond child rearing age, say, mid 30s to early 40s but, again, I don't know enough about paleolithic society to make anything other than a superficial case. I'm also not arguing against the likely health benefits of daily exercise etc. Long term or otherwise. Just against the genetic case that uses the "what was good for our ancestors" argument.
- ucaetano 11y ago
  Actually, there is a genetic advantage for having old people who can't procreate. In societies, having old people to take care of infants frees young people's time to either obtain resources or procreate more.
  - VLM 11y ago
    Also the extensive education and experience hunter gathering requires is all in the old people's heads. "I'm young and strong but starving" vs "Before you were born I was killing wild deer down in that obscure valley you overlooked, now you and a couple kids head out there, and drag some meat back for the rest of the tribe, also we're dying of thirst and I used to play in a freshwater spring in that other valley as a kid" "Ah yes that is a very attractive looking mushroom to a hungry youngster, but I regret to inform you that 37 years ago one looking exactly like it poisoned my great aunt when I was just a kid like you"

ap22213 11y ago

Not sure about Paleolithic, but this source claims average lifespan for hunter gatherers at 70 years. Not bad considering one gets to hang with their friends and family, have low stress, work less. http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2...