4 ms·
Surely there must be some downside to it. If it weren't so, one would have expected this gene to spread across the human genepool millions of years ago. There
by Blikkentrekker 5y ago
Surely there must be some downside to it.
If it weren't so, one would have expected this gene to spread across the human genepool millions of years ago.
There must be something that is overlooked.
Perhaps, optimism is not a good ticket to survival: I am quite optimistic that this larger, scary looking animal has no intention to eat me.
- neutronicus 5y agoUsed to be, boredom killed humans like curiosity kills cats Turning off for 9 hours was a defense mechanism
- IshKebab 5y agoThat's a particularly implausible hypothesis.
- Blikkentrekker 5y agoGiven all the very advantageous qualities this gene has to offer, there must be at leas some considerable downsides to it indeed.
- DangitBobby 5y agoNot necessarily. 1) It could be a relatively recent mutation. 2) It's probably not particularly important for sexual selection.
- woopwoop 5y agoI would imagine short sleepers need more calories.
- lostcolony 5y agoSo they're less likely to be obese. Great. That makes me feel -so- much better about being a long sleeper. :P
- klipt 5y agoThrough most of human history, needing more calories meant you were the first to starve during a famine.
- ArkanExplorer 5y agoIts only recently that humans gained the ability to control the illumination and temperature of their work environment. Sleeping less would have been of no advantage when you have 8hours+ of night for each 24 hour period anyway.
- zajio1am 5y agoWithout artificial lighting, the short sleeping gene is not that useful.