7 ms·
It sounds rather a lot less pleasant when you describe it as a straw pallet. That said, early humans that managed to survive childhood most likely had generall
by User23 6y ago
It sounds rather a lot less pleasant when you describe it as a straw pallet.
That said, early humans that managed to survive childhood most likely had generally pleasant lives. That and their average level of physical fitness based on archeological evidence would rate at the elite level today. I recall reading about a fossilized set of footprints in Australia that indicated a foot speed that would shame Usain Bolt, and presumably fossilization doesn’t have a foot speed bias.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago>I recall reading about a fossilized set of footprints in Australia that indicated a foot speed that would shame Usain Bolt I can't help but feel that guy must have really been scared by something.
- flak48 6y agoWelp, down I go the rabbit hole of looking for how one might guess the speed of a runner from foot prints
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mkl 6y agoOr he was hunting, and something was really scared by him.
- brendawalsh 6y agoI think clever hunting should not require alot of running, as a human.
- Kuinox 6y agoHumans were good at long distance running hunting
- basicplus2 6y agoHumans can out run and hunt down most animals because we evolved hairless sweating for cooling. (Persistance hunting) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
- User23 6y agoI've always thought the Human/Wolf tag team must have been really frustrating for all the other animals. The two most successful persistence hunting species teaming up would be pretty lame for the prey species.
- hanniabu 6y agoLike playing a game against a pro "this isn't even fair" throws controller
- josefx 6y agoHowever that doesn't require being faster than Usain Bolt and actually works because we are better at long distance running than short sprints.
- ahmedfromtunis 6y agoIn Hooked, Nir Eyal talked about a tribe in South Africa whose members hunt a particular animal (I forgot its name) by running behind it for 8 hours straight.
- manmal 6y agoUsually, that was rather a mix of walking, walking fast, and the occasional jog. The animal just broke down from exhaustion in the end, exactly _because_ it had been running all day.
- hanniabu 6y agoThis works for many larger animals. Humans have the benefit of being able to sweat and regulate our body temperature efficiently so all we need to do it chase the animal until it overheats and is exhausted. I'm not sure of the animal you were hearing about, but for many animals this would be way less than 8hrs (probably even as little as 10 minutes, maybe less).
- toyg 6y ago> early humans that managed to survive childhood most likely had generally pleasant lives Well, of course: they'd never live long enough to become weak, whiny, and regretful.
- loosetypes 6y agoOne idea put forth in Civilized to Death is that this sentiment is a mis-meme stemming from the common knowledge that average life spans have increased in modern times. That while, sure, the average has gone up, this is primarily due to decreases in infant mortality rates. So there’s a plethora of zeros skewing down the average for “back then”. That is, if you survived through childhood back then, you’d likely expect to live just about as long as everyone today.
- lliamander 6y agoYep. Averages don't tell you much unless you know the shape of the distribution.
- satya71 6y ago> That is, if you survived through childhood back then, you’d likely expect to live just about as long as everyone today. Somehow I doubt that very much. I grew up in an emerging economy. Between the last few decades, life expectancy at birth went up from mid 50s to high 60s. Infant mortality went down, but not enough to cause the rise in life expectancy. Anecdotally, I know most of my immediate family didn't make it past 70, but that's changing now. Relatively simple to treat chronic diseases such as cardiac issues and diabetes got them.
- loosetypes 6y agoI’m not arguing one way or another, these are all very broad claims in both directions. But if you’re interested, that books also speculates that many such health issues, including the above, are relatively recent human ailments brought on by the modern diet facilitated by agriculture.
- 6y ago
- magicnubs 6y agoWe're you referring to pallets used in warehouses/shipping? I think they're using a different definition, i.e. "a straw-filled tick or mattress", "a small, hard or temporary bed". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pallet https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pallet
- trhway 6y ago>their average level of physical fitness based on archeological evidence would rate at the elite level today you don't see a contradiction between "pleasant life" and top fitness? I mean what can be a reason that the average was such a high level of physical fitness? May it be that "pleasant life" was so rife with challenges and dangers that only top fitness allowed for survival?
- gbear605 6y agoImagine a life where you had to strenuously hunt for 30 hours a week and then partied for the rest of the time. It’d result in both a high level of physical fitness and be pretty pleasant. I don’t know if that’s an accurate description of their life, but it shows that the two terms aren’t contradictory.
- trhway 6y ago's/hunt/study/' and that is our University years. While definitely pleasant, it didn't result in high mental fitness though :)
- inawarminister 6y agoWe'll that explains why stone toolkits stayed pretty similar for thousands of years. Ancient hunter gatherers were a bunch of frat boys with some elders (that can still move with the hunting band/clan) leading them. City living aren't that healthy (especially in the Neolithic) but you have lots of time to make new things... And use them in the future instead of needing to abandon them when your band moves on.
- brendawalsh 6y agoYou are not at a high fitness level without a decent food supply. That is thriving, not simply surviving.
- mkoubaa 6y agoyou have to imagine we mostly descended from the groups which thrived and not the ones who eked by
- TeMPOraL 6y ago> early humans that managed to survive childhood As a new parent (14 m.o.), I keep wondering, how did early humans - in the pre-language, pre-writing times - managed to survive, given how much care and supervision small babies require?
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoIt takes a village. Back in those days, humans lived in tribes and worked together to survive. Parents also had a lot of children, most of which died.
- hpkuarg 6y agoIt took a village ;-)
- ponker 6y agoThey didn’t live in isolation like Western societies do today.
- DoreenMichele 6y agoMy oldest took a lot of care and I was fairly cash strapped. He was constantly on my hip or strapped to my chest while I did things all day. You can get a lot of menial labor done with an infant in tow while giving them attention.
- mhh__ 6y agoLiving in groups, and having more babies (i.e. child birth rates always drop when conditions in a country improve)
- n4r9 6y agoDoes anyone know any details about how the archaeologist derived foot speed from ancient fossilized footprints? I've come across this before but took it with a big pinch of salt.
- uofo 6y agoI’d imagine spacing of prints, how the foot engaged with the ground, depth of print, etc...
- User23 6y agoI assume it’s mainly first year calculus since the defining characteristic of running is that it’s repeated launching. Since the downward vector of gravity is a constant I’d imagine a foot to same foot distance is sufficient to solve for speed. And this is just my first thought as a semi-educated layman. I have no doubt the experts who study these things think of and solve for many other factors. I may not be able to reproduce their work but I can judge it plausible.
- hanniabu 6y agoA large stride doesn't equal a faster speed. A large stride is beneficial to a mid-distance pace like 800m or mile, but for sprints you'd want faster turnover with shorter more powerful strides.
- n4r9 6y ago> I’d imagine a foot to same foot distance is sufficient to solve for speed. There surely must be an assumption about leg length, and that the person wasn't just playing some hop-scotch style game with long, slow, bounding strides. I think I'd need quite strong evidence to convince me that ancient humans were as fast as someone with modern nutrition and training. Especially as (unless I'm mistaken) there's no indication that people in hunter gatherer lifestyles today are particularly fast.