3 ms·
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Of course their lower lifespan was partly due to disease, that is the point.
by papsosouid 14y ago
I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Of course their lower lifespan was partly due to disease, that is the point.
- JPKab 14y agoNo, its not the point. Did you even read the article? The article is making a claim that the specific "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, diabetes) would have been equally prevalent in primitive societies IF people had actually made it to old age. There is zero discussion or argument about the fact that people died of random shit that is today easily cured. The argument is due to the fact that the people that DIDN't die due to random pathogens/violent acts/etc DID live to comparable levels of old age, and the author doesn't get that. When more than half of children die before age 5, it skews the life expectancy statistic the author is citing to claim that there were no old people around to get heart disease or cancer. This is completely incorrect.
- papsosouid 14y ago>The article is making a claim that the specific "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, diabetes) would have been equally prevalent in primitive societies IF people had actually made it to old age Right. And you pretended that they did make it to old age and infant mortality was the cause of lower lifespans. I corrected that misconception. I honestly have no idea how you got this confused. >DIDN't die due to random pathogens/violent acts/etc DID live to comparable levels of old age No, they didn't. That's the point. Hitting 80 was exceptionally rare. Rare like hitting 110 is now.