3 ms·
Ha, that’s interesting. We could look at whether more solitary mammals have less of a fever response. The feature isn’t guaranteed to fall off, of course, but i
by pfannkuchen 2y ago
Ha, that’s interesting. We could look at whether more solitary mammals have less of a fever response. The feature isn’t guaranteed to fall off, of course, but if it did that would be good evidence for this theory.
EDIT On the former though I think we’d expect babies to be able to tolerate fever well and they really don’t.
- bobthepanda 2y agofamily sizes used to be much larger so evolution was not necessarily predicated on having every child survive, just an average of more than 2.1.
- jjk166 2y agoBabies are deliberately fragile - if there is an issue evolution wants to nip it in the bud early rather than wasting years of resources raising someone who is ultimately not going to reach adulthood anyways. This is part of the reason that mortality in the first year is over 14 times higher than in the second year, even in the developed world with modern medical practices. Evolution doesn't care about babies, they are easily replaceable. Evolution doesn't care about the elderly, they have served their purpose. The most important thing is to keep people in their late teens to early thirties alive at all costs as these are the ones statistically most likely to successfully produce and raise offspring. It is no coincidence that this is also the age where people reach peak physical condition. Nature is brutal, but efficient.
- maxerickson 2y agoHuman babies are fragile because of physical limits on gestation time. Lots of mammals stand up and start doing things literal moments after they are birthed.