1171

submitted 5 days ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] DarkGamer@fedia.io 75 points 5 days 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 63 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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 5 days ago

"grandparents"

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

[-] PoopingCough@lemmy.world 62 points 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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 5 days 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.

[-] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 29 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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 13 points 5 days 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