3 ms·

You've missed my point, the increases in human lifespans have come from greater success at reproduction (surviving childbirth, and surviving being a child long

You've missed my point, the increases in human lifespans have come from greater success at reproduction (surviving childbirth, and surviving being a child long enough to reach sexual maturity), which is rather contrary to what you've suggested. Furthermore: > "As lifespans increase, so should efforts to avoid cumulative, damaging radiation." The elderly are not living much longer than they ever did before, so this is basically nonsense. It makes sense if you assume that 200 years ago men were dropping dead in their 40s like those naive life expectancy statistics would lead to to believe, but that's not what was going on. The life expectancy of a mature male has barely changed at all in the past few thousand years, so the relative importance of avoiding cumulative damage like radiation has not increased either.

brandonmenc 8y ago
> naive life expectancy statistics Yes, we all know about that. You're getting too hung up on me saying "lifespans increase." Forget that I said that. Imagine I instead said, "we are optimizing for health in old age more than the ancients did." > the relative importance of avoiding cumulative damage like radiation has not increased either It wasn't important at all back then because they didn't know about it. Do you want to die in agony in your 70s from metastasized skin cancer, or peacefully in your sleep at 80? My point is that propagation of the species, old age, and rampant melanoma can all exist simultaneously - so what people did in the past re: sun exposure isn't necessarily good advice for us today.