4 ms·

Yet another unambiguous data point that modern life is measurably worse for your body, and with less diversity, than tens of thousands of years ago.

r3trohack3r 3y ago
> Yet another unambiguous data point that modern life is measurably worse for your body I’m not sure this is the takeaway. I feel there are many unambiguous data points that modern life is measurably better for your body. Infant mortality rate. Average life expectancy. The mortality rate for mothers during pregnancy. The mortality rate for random injuries (cuts, breaks, etc.). Death by food poisoning. Quality of life, and mortality rates, for mental and physical disabilities. It seems like, in nearly any circumstance, the modern human body is at considerably less risk than our ancestors. But there are trade-offs and missteps. It seems we’ve tossed the baby with the bath water in some cases. And getting the baby back further improves modern life.
- martythemaniak 3y ago
  All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
  - asdff 3y ago
    Jokes aside but ancient rome was probably a disgusting place where setting foot into it put you at severe health risk compared to a quaint village. There's a reason why the rich rich of rome lived in villas outside of town.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Obviously we don’t have records for the majority cause of death in 100,000BC, however I see no reason to believe that compared to Paleolithic man there are fewer risks now. Consider the top youth killers today: drug overdoses, automobile accidents, firearms, household accidents. These were just not possible ways that people could die in 100,000BC. Yet heart attack and cancer have always led death rates for as long as humans have been counting. My hunch is that people for the most part have always mostly died of “old age” (cancer, heart attack, pneumonia, infection) for all of human history and while overall rate had dropped - the type has changed to be less random biology and more social-cultural (which is worse IMO)
  - AntiRemote 3y ago
    [dead]
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    People have used drugs since time immemorial and even "natural" drugs can kill you. For example dying from esophogeal rupture during those purging ceremonies where toxins are ingested to induce profuse vomiting. Though there were no firearms, there certainly were weapons and murder. Even human sacrifice. Before there were cars, being kicked by a horse was a significant risk. Or being killed by the animals you hunt, like mammoths and other large mammals. And I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting "household accidents". Accidents were possible before too. And way probably more lethal on average because there were no antibiotics, soap, or blood transfusions.
    - anthk 3y ago
      Or just a simple byte. A laceration. A simple fall with a random stone in the road. And so on.
- asdff 3y ago
  Our injury prevention and treatment is better. Our knowledge of kinesiology is better. However, how many people even care about the findings of kinesiology or public health? Not a lot as it were if you were to go out in public and observe the average state of health for most people, some people take good health advice and straight up take offense to it. People made political campaigns out of it not long ago with the pandemic. That being said, if you were to take your average hunter gatherer who is not ill or infected, compare them to your average american office worker, I'd guess you are comparing a slender low bmi person with great endurance, functional strength, and practical knowledge on survival to one who is overweight, doesn't know how to feed themselves without a modern grocery store, only walks to the car, and will probably end up dying sooner due to health issues stemming from being overweight, a poor diet, and general inactivity.
- Aerbil313 3y ago
  Stop saying that life expectancy thing. Old people _lived_. Modern people suffer a lifetime physically, mentally, and spiritually.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  > It seems like, in nearly any circumstance, the modern human body is at considerably less risk than our ancestors. I don't think so. I think the risk is just flattened. We've quashed deaths from injuries and trauma, but chronic disease has been getting worse, due in part to our diet and lifestyles. I'd be surprised if modern people have better vitality and stamina over their lifetime than our pre-agrarian ancestors did.
chomp 3y ago
I don't think this is right, hunter-gather diets were largely restricted to the area they lived, you can't across the board call them diverse. It depends if you lived in an area that was blessed with diversity, or if you were forced to eat the same seeds/nuts constantly. Malnutrition plagued the Neanderthals by the way. We have skeletons and teeth that show disruption to growth. There's evidence of some groups of gatherers that subsisted on local flora that caused excessive amounts of tooth decay. Modern living results in way healthier people (for the most part).
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  Point is well taken that I shouldn’t generalize and that it’s likely been a trade off. I suppose my rebut would claim that the diet of the average US adult today is worse than the average Paleolithic person, but that the healthiest US adult would be healthier than the healthiest Paleolithic person.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > I suppose my rebut would claim that the diet of the average US adult today is worse than the average Paleolithic person Worse in some aspects. But the leading cause of death in paleolithic times is thought to be diarrhea from foodborne illness causing dehydration and starvation, which is not such a killer today. Is that included in "diet"? (It would seem to be, because we're talking about effects on gut biome...)
    - dmbche 3y ago
      I think it has more to do with sanitation than diet directly, many illnesses that kill that way (cholera, for one) flourish to this day in unclean areas, where excrement contaminates the water/food. Not eating rotting food as well, which was normal for a very long time. Pretty certain that that accounts for a whole lot of diarhea and death. It does make me think of how little soil we are in contact with compared to paleolithic persons - I know that B12 is sourced from the soil in our alimentation, but since we wash our produce we don't get any, and if you don't eat meat you need to supplement. I wonder if there are not other bacterium that we are washing away. Also remember hearing that it could be picked up on your skin on contact, which is also not something most people do daily.
jandrese 3y ago
I'm not sure "diversity of gut flora" is a good indicator of quality of life. It might just mean you have less dirt in your diet.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
1970-01-01 3y ago
>Yet another unambiguous data point I checked. It's ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Health_effect...
- myshpa 3y ago
  I don't think a modern paleo "fad" diet has anything to do with the real diet of that times. Anthropologist Debunks the Paleo Diet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  To be clear I think there’s a significant difference between “What people ate in the Paleolithic“ and “The Paleo Diet” TM
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fasterik 3y ago
I doubt this is true if you factor in the positive effects of medical care, safer living conditions, sanitation, etc. that are available in modern developed countries.

r3trohack3r 3y ago

> Yet another unambiguous data point that modern life is measurably worse for your body I’m not sure this is the takeaway. I feel there are many unambiguous data points that modern life is measurably better for your body. Infant mortality rate. Average life expectancy. The mortality rate for mothers during pregnancy. The mortality rate for random injuries (cuts, breaks, etc.). Death by food poisoning. Quality of life, and mortality rates, for mental and physical disabilities. It seems like, in nearly any circumstance, the modern human body is at considerably less risk than our ancestors. But there are trade-offs and missteps. It seems we’ve tossed the baby with the bath water in some cases. And getting the baby back further improves modern life.

martythemaniak 3y ago
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
- asdff 3y ago
  Jokes aside but ancient rome was probably a disgusting place where setting foot into it put you at severe health risk compared to a quaint village. There's a reason why the rich rich of rome lived in villas outside of town.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Obviously we don’t have records for the majority cause of death in 100,000BC, however I see no reason to believe that compared to Paleolithic man there are fewer risks now. Consider the top youth killers today: drug overdoses, automobile accidents, firearms, household accidents. These were just not possible ways that people could die in 100,000BC. Yet heart attack and cancer have always led death rates for as long as humans have been counting. My hunch is that people for the most part have always mostly died of “old age” (cancer, heart attack, pneumonia, infection) for all of human history and while overall rate had dropped - the type has changed to be less random biology and more social-cultural (which is worse IMO)
- AntiRemote 3y ago
  [dead]
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  People have used drugs since time immemorial and even "natural" drugs can kill you. For example dying from esophogeal rupture during those purging ceremonies where toxins are ingested to induce profuse vomiting. Though there were no firearms, there certainly were weapons and murder. Even human sacrifice. Before there were cars, being kicked by a horse was a significant risk. Or being killed by the animals you hunt, like mammoths and other large mammals. And I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting "household accidents". Accidents were possible before too. And way probably more lethal on average because there were no antibiotics, soap, or blood transfusions.
  - anthk 3y ago
    Or just a simple byte. A laceration. A simple fall with a random stone in the road. And so on.
asdff 3y ago
Our injury prevention and treatment is better. Our knowledge of kinesiology is better. However, how many people even care about the findings of kinesiology or public health? Not a lot as it were if you were to go out in public and observe the average state of health for most people, some people take good health advice and straight up take offense to it. People made political campaigns out of it not long ago with the pandemic. That being said, if you were to take your average hunter gatherer who is not ill or infected, compare them to your average american office worker, I'd guess you are comparing a slender low bmi person with great endurance, functional strength, and practical knowledge on survival to one who is overweight, doesn't know how to feed themselves without a modern grocery store, only walks to the car, and will probably end up dying sooner due to health issues stemming from being overweight, a poor diet, and general inactivity.
Aerbil313 3y ago
Stop saying that life expectancy thing. Old people _lived_. Modern people suffer a lifetime physically, mentally, and spiritually.
ramblenode 3y ago
> It seems like, in nearly any circumstance, the modern human body is at considerably less risk than our ancestors. I don't think so. I think the risk is just flattened. We've quashed deaths from injuries and trauma, but chronic disease has been getting worse, due in part to our diet and lifestyles. I'd be surprised if modern people have better vitality and stamina over their lifetime than our pre-agrarian ancestors did.

chomp 3y ago

I don't think this is right, hunter-gather diets were largely restricted to the area they lived, you can't across the board call them diverse. It depends if you lived in an area that was blessed with diversity, or if you were forced to eat the same seeds/nuts constantly. Malnutrition plagued the Neanderthals by the way. We have skeletons and teeth that show disruption to growth. There's evidence of some groups of gatherers that subsisted on local flora that caused excessive amounts of tooth decay. Modern living results in way healthier people (for the most part).

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
Point is well taken that I shouldn’t generalize and that it’s likely been a trade off. I suppose my rebut would claim that the diet of the average US adult today is worse than the average Paleolithic person, but that the healthiest US adult would be healthier than the healthiest Paleolithic person.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > I suppose my rebut would claim that the diet of the average US adult today is worse than the average Paleolithic person Worse in some aspects. But the leading cause of death in paleolithic times is thought to be diarrhea from foodborne illness causing dehydration and starvation, which is not such a killer today. Is that included in "diet"? (It would seem to be, because we're talking about effects on gut biome...)
  - dmbche 3y ago
    I think it has more to do with sanitation than diet directly, many illnesses that kill that way (cholera, for one) flourish to this day in unclean areas, where excrement contaminates the water/food. Not eating rotting food as well, which was normal for a very long time. Pretty certain that that accounts for a whole lot of diarhea and death. It does make me think of how little soil we are in contact with compared to paleolithic persons - I know that B12 is sourced from the soil in our alimentation, but since we wash our produce we don't get any, and if you don't eat meat you need to supplement. I wonder if there are not other bacterium that we are washing away. Also remember hearing that it could be picked up on your skin on contact, which is also not something most people do daily.

jandrese 3y ago

I'm not sure "diversity of gut flora" is a good indicator of quality of life. It might just mean you have less dirt in your diet.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

1970-01-01 3y ago

>Yet another unambiguous data point I checked. It's ambiguous: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Health_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_diet#Health_effect...

myshpa 3y ago
I don't think a modern paleo "fad" diet has anything to do with the real diet of that times. Anthropologist Debunks the Paleo Diet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
To be clear I think there’s a significant difference between “What people ate in the Paleolithic“ and “The Paleo Diet” TM

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

fasterik 3y ago

I doubt this is true if you factor in the positive effects of medical care, safer living conditions, sanitation, etc. that are available in modern developed countries.