3 ms·
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 g
by 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 agoActually, 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 agoAlso 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"