8 ms·

>Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way evolution works. That's not true when it comes to age related diseases

>Stuff our ancestors used to do is likely to be neutral or good for you, due to the way evolution works. That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Through most of mankind's evolution these diseases did not affect our procreation rate at all. Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones. It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50.

stcredzero 13y ago
That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Well of course! Whether it's "good" or "bad" is kinda hazy and contextual as well. A gene that might encourage heart disease at age 50 might also make us better at spearing ferocious animals at age 19. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones. I know of someone from the pacific island of Yap, and his entire generation was stunted in their growth from his culture's encounter with American junk food. It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50. So then it's fine for young hipsters to practice?
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  >his entire generation was stunted in their growth from his culture's encounter with American junk food. That seems very hard to believe. Americans are rather tall on average.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    He told us unequivocally that his generation was noticeably shorter. Some searching turned up lots of mentions of malnutrition on pacific islands when local diets were disrupted, though it's not so easy to find mentions of Yap specifically. Here's one mentioning the Marshalls. http://books.google.com/books?id=p3liL6fAjrcC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=yap+islanders+malnutrition&source=bl&ots=Oa4WUMh_5O&sig=qd-kGNrH94iwQiYOPYN9oIY3BOc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ILUAU6ahNIPYoAT64oGADQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=yap%20islanders%20malnutrition&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=p3liL6fAjrcC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA... I suspect you are protecting some cherished preconceived notions.
    - fauigerzigerk 13y ago
      What I'm saying is that food can have bad consequences in terms of cancer or heart health but not necessarily stunt growth. The unhealthy American diet (tons of sugar, salt, meat and animal fat) is not known for stunting growth, and your evidence for it is more than thin: One sentence in a book written by someone with a degree in political science. American diet is not exactly a cherished notion of mine either. Neither is it my diet of choice nor am I American.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Stunting affects about 147 million children worldwide. This long term under nourishment is very common. The WFP (world food program) gives estimates of 227 million for Africa and 553 million people in Asia and Pacific. What happened when local diets were disrupted? Were local foods bought in return for much lower quality food? Was malnutrition made worse? Or did we just start documenting it better?
nkoren 13y ago
> Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity. Incorrect. Evolution optimises for propagation of genes. Procreation is one but not the element of that process. Think about this way: if you are living by yourself in the forest and have octuplets, then you are very good at procreation; if you die immediately afterwards, then you are evolutionarily unfit despite your procreative abilities, because none of your young will survive to pass on their genes. For creatures like humans -- born with helpless young -- the person who has two children and lives long enough to ensure that they can pass on their own genes is more evolutionarily fit than the person who procreates like mad but lets all their children die. In our evolutionary environment, post-procreative individuals played vital roles in ensuring the survival of the young: taking care of children while their parents were off hunting and gathering; preparing foodstuffs; passing on lore about which plants were dangerous to eat, etc. In this way, the presence of elders facilitated the propagation of genes -- right up to the point where the care and maintenance of said elders becomes such a drain on resources that it begins to diminish rather than enhance the survival and procreation prospects for the young. That's quite a long time, however, so generally speaking, genetic lines that produce long-lived healthy individuals who enhance the survival prospects of the young will be more successful than genetic lines which don't.
- fauigerzigerk 13y ago
  If most people have children in their 20s, there is very little evolutionary advantage to living beyond, say, 60. Until then, they will have passed on all their valuable wisdom.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    I think the key point is that ability to help ensure survival and reproduction of great-grandchildren matters (evolutionarily) half as much as the same of grandchildren, which matters half as much as the same of children. Though in principle there's nothing preventing continued ability to have children in later years...
    - fauigerzigerk 13y ago

stcredzero 13y ago

That's not true when it comes to age related diseases like cancer or heart disease. Well of course! Whether it's "good" or "bad" is kinda hazy and contextual as well. A gene that might encourage heart disease at age 50 might also make us better at spearing ferocious animals at age 19. It is very likely that an ample supply of burgers, fries and fat cheese (especially during winter) would have led to higher birth rates not lower ones. I know of someone from the pacific island of Yap, and his entire generation was stunted in their growth from his culture's encounter with American junk food. It could well be that much of our ancestors' lifestyle is poison for anyone over 50. So then it's fine for young hipsters to practice?

fauigerzigerk 13y ago
>his entire generation was stunted in their growth from his culture's encounter with American junk food. That seems very hard to believe. Americans are rather tall on average.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  He told us unequivocally that his generation was noticeably shorter. Some searching turned up lots of mentions of malnutrition on pacific islands when local diets were disrupted, though it's not so easy to find mentions of Yap specifically. Here's one mentioning the Marshalls. http://books.google.com/books?id=p3liL6fAjrcC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=yap+islanders+malnutrition&source=bl&ots=Oa4WUMh_5O&sig=qd-kGNrH94iwQiYOPYN9oIY3BOc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ILUAU6ahNIPYoAT64oGADQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=yap%20islanders%20malnutrition&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=p3liL6fAjrcC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA... I suspect you are protecting some cherished preconceived notions.
  - fauigerzigerk 13y ago
    What I'm saying is that food can have bad consequences in terms of cancer or heart health but not necessarily stunt growth. The unhealthy American diet (tons of sugar, salt, meat and animal fat) is not known for stunting growth, and your evidence for it is more than thin: One sentence in a book written by someone with a degree in political science. American diet is not exactly a cherished notion of mine either. Neither is it my diet of choice nor am I American.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Stunting affects about 147 million children worldwide. This long term under nourishment is very common. The WFP (world food program) gives estimates of 227 million for Africa and 553 million people in Asia and Pacific. What happened when local diets were disrupted? Were local foods bought in return for much lower quality food? Was malnutrition made worse? Or did we just start documenting it better?

nkoren 13y ago

> Evolution optimizes for procreation not for longevity. Incorrect. Evolution optimises for propagation of genes. Procreation is one but not the element of that process. Think about this way: if you are living by yourself in the forest and have octuplets, then you are very good at procreation; if you die immediately afterwards, then you are evolutionarily unfit despite your procreative abilities, because none of your young will survive to pass on their genes. For creatures like humans -- born with helpless young -- the person who has two children and lives long enough to ensure that they can pass on their own genes is more evolutionarily fit than the person who procreates like mad but lets all their children die. In our evolutionary environment, post-procreative individuals played vital roles in ensuring the survival of the young: taking care of children while their parents were off hunting and gathering; preparing foodstuffs; passing on lore about which plants were dangerous to eat, etc. In this way, the presence of elders facilitated the propagation of genes -- right up to the point where the care and maintenance of said elders becomes such a drain on resources that it begins to diminish rather than enhance the survival and procreation prospects for the young. That's quite a long time, however, so generally speaking, genetic lines that produce long-lived healthy individuals who enhance the survival prospects of the young will be more successful than genetic lines which don't.

fauigerzigerk 13y ago
If most people have children in their 20s, there is very little evolutionary advantage to living beyond, say, 60. Until then, they will have passed on all their valuable wisdom.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  I think the key point is that ability to help ensure survival and reproduction of great-grandchildren matters (evolutionarily) half as much as the same of grandchildren, which matters half as much as the same of children. Though in principle there's nothing preventing continued ability to have children in later years...
  - fauigerzigerk 13y ago