1187
Cheeky (mander.xyz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 76 points 9 months ago

Tbf, our teeth aren't bad. They just didn't evolve to consume so much sugar.

[-] DarkGamer@fedia.io 75 points 9 months ago

From an evolutionary standpoint we just have to survive long enough to reproduce, if we can't eat past age of reproduction there's no evolutionary pressure to change that.

Thank goodness for modern dentistry.

[-] Hawke@lemmy.world 64 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That’s completely untrue.

Evolution applies to the entire lifespan — if we could “reproduce” but died in childbirth every time, our species would have gone extinct long ago.

Parents and grandparents also contribute greatly to the success of a child long long after they’re born, helping to ensure it also survives to reproductive age.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 10 points 9 months ago

"grandparents"

Life expectancy in 18th century France was in the 20s, grandparents are optional

[-] PoopingCough@lemmy.world 63 points 9 months ago

I don't disagree with your overall point, but statistics like that are almost always heavily skewed because of high infant mortality rates

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

The mortality rate during childbirth was pretty high for women on top of the infant rate. Childbirth as a whole dragged the numbers down.

[-] psud@aussie.zone 5 points 9 months ago

The mortality of mothers only became a big issue between doctors being in charge of birth and hand washing becoming a rule

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

The domestication of storks has also led to fewer deaths upon delivery. I wish to also add something to this thread of reddit factoids.

[-] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

18th century france is also quite possibly the single worst place and point in time to use as a comparison, there's a reason people beheaded monarchs.

[-] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

[Edit : It turns out people have said the same thing while I was looking for the right source to confirm my point, so I guess this comment's a bit redundant now. Still leaving it in case someone's interested]

The number's correct but...

Child mortality The most significant difference between historical mortality rates and modern figures is that child and infant mortality was so high in pre-industrial times; before the introduction of vaccination, water treatment, and other medical knowledge or technologies, women would have around seven children throughout their lifetime, but around half of these would not make it to adulthood. Accurate, historical figures for infant mortality are difficult to ascertain, as it was so prevalent, it took place in the home, and was rarely recorded in censuses; however, figures from this source suggest that the rate was around 300 deaths per 1,000 live births in some years, meaning that almost one in three infants did not make it to their first birthday in certain periods. For those who survived to adolescence, they could expect to live into their forties or fifties on average.

So reaching 50 wasn't too rare for someone who had survived childhood, and given how people often started having children younger then, that was well enough to be grandparent. Doesn't mean everyone would've gotten to known their grandparents, but it wouldn't have been super rare either.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 14 points 9 months ago

If you make past childhood for most of history outside of places experiencing plagues, major famines, or wars, you had a good shot of making it to your 70s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_vs._other_measures_of_longevity

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago

That was an evolutionarily insignificant time period.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 26 points 9 months ago

They just didn’t evolve to consume so much sugar.

Bro, eating oranges puts our tooth enamel in a weakened state. If we were designed, it was by an idiot.

[-] Hawke@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Oranges do not naturally have that much sugar.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 19 points 9 months ago

It's not the sugar, but the acid that our teeth can't handle.

The fact that healthy foods can't be consumed without a risk of harm is not an intelligent design.

I mean, even apples (i.e. "Garden of Eden") can promote the growth of plaque!

[-] feannag@sh.itjust.works 16 points 9 months ago

I mean, biblically speaking we weren't supposed to eat those apples.

[-] flicker@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

If an all-knowing creator didn't want humans to eat fruit from a specific tree, he shouldn't have grown that tree in the only garden he had humans in.

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Yahweh and mind games. What an asshole. 😂

[-] psud@aussie.zone 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Cane and Abel tells us the gods don't like vegetable farmers, that want meat

Meat doesn't damage your teeth

Incidentally the damage from sugar is fermentation - it makes carbonic acid (the stuff that makes soda fizzy) which is a weaker acid than citric

Citrus didn't make it to Europe quickly - it came from China

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Actually a bigger contributor is underdeveloped jaws due to no longer requiring to chew from.a very young age for nutritional requirements.

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 9 months ago

Why would stronger Jaws prevent teeth decay?

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Why would not having developmentally impaired mouth including teeth, muscle, and bone be beneficial for longterm resilience?

Idk dude, figure it out. Some people, I swear.

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 9 months ago

Wow, are you always this much of an asshole when people ask you questions?

[-] MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 4 points 9 months ago

Means they don't know...

Although asshole might be strong.

[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

"The hole ass is strong with this one"

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Why does being mean to you make me an asshole? (This is a facetious question)

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

(This is a facetious question)

At least we agree on your assholery then.

[-] Lux18@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago
[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago
[-] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 9 months ago

"But what about others being insufferable?"

A bit of a missed point

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I replied to the user with an image of them being jaded, after they criticized me for being jaded. Seems hypocritical to say I may not do something while they themself may, no?

[-] kittehx 3 points 9 months ago

Half our expected lifetime was our expected lifetime back when they evolved. Teeth are doing quite well, all things considered.

this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
1187 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16016 readers
2982 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS