>The article is making a claim that the specific "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, diabetes) would have been equally prevalent in primitive soc

>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.