4 ms·
> I don't know why that's relevant We care about CVD because of mortality, and if mortality rate is terrible then it's a moot point. > people living past 100
by slothtrop 2y ago
> I don't know why that's relevant
We care about CVD because of mortality, and if mortality rate is terrible then it's a moot point.
> people living past 100 was far from uncommon
"uncommon" is not a number. The most we can infer from the data is that life was exceedingly harsh and short on average. Even if we believe it was 70 years old, that's still worse.
- culi 2y agoWe absolutely do not have data that confirms life was exceedingly harsh or shorter. In fact, this is an age old debate in anthropology. A major discussion was sparked by a talk called "The Original Affluent Society" during a now-famous symposium which highlighted then-recent evidence that non-industrial societies generally had much more leisure time and less stress. We also know that they had much more stable food sources than agricultural counterparts and much less diseases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_the_Hunter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_the_Hunter The debate has of course evolved since then and I won't recount the 50 years of research and debate that's happened but modern anthropologists are pretty much in agreement that the "nasty, brutish, and short" narrative is completely baseless.