Plenty of anecdotal stories of infant brothers and sisters not making it through hiding during the holocaust because of muffling their cries.
I don’t care enough to ruin my day by validating a of them though.
Comment on Mother
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 3 days agoeeeh our whole evolutionary niche is to be so social that we’ll form bonds with a literal rock, i can’t see the vast vast vast majority of mentally healthy humans managing to do it, more likely they’d try to gently throw the child away from the danger and sacrifice themselves.
prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
Okay, but I don’t think this was intentional suffocation of the kids. This seems much more as an attempt to get everyone to survive
theangryseal@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I read that parents ate some kids during famines. Could be bullshit though, I don’t want to look.
philpo@feddit.org 2 days ago
It’s true. There are various witnesses of the Shoa who absolutely did testify this happened. I actually spoke to one of them in school - during highschool two survivors of the holocaust did come to my (German) highschool and talked about what they went through, extremely nice people with extremely horrible stories.
One of them explained how they hid in an abandoned building and how the mother of the other family hiding with them choked their 8 week old baby when there was a official patrol nearby and they had to stay quiet. Didn’t help, they got caught shortly after and as far as we were told none of the other family made it.
The worst thing? It’s one of the “less gruesome” stories the whole Holocaust has…
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
oh you can validate them real easy: it’s anecdotal, thus false until actually proven.
Quadhammer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That babies name? Its true. He grew up to be albert einstine
GiantChickDicks@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
I don’t think that would be the general case with humans under these kinds of circumstances. For most of history, women had many more children on average than we see in most of the world today. It was expected that many wouldn’t live past three years old in much of known, recorded history. I can only imagine in circumstances even more primitive than what we know of, something like this wouldn’t be as unthinkable as you’re describing.
FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 days ago
Yeah. We evolved to survive as a group. Not as individuals.
Kangaroos while they do sometimes form groups, are far far less social, and kids of dead parents aren’t adopted like what would happen in a human group.
psud@aussie.zone 2 days ago
Kangaroos form two sorts of groups
sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Some of the skeletons that we’ve found from… basically the last ice age, some even further back, show humans (or proto humans) that had had badly fractured bones… but they healed up (not well by modern standards, but nonetheless), and then those bones grew, and the individual died at a much greater age than when the serious fracture occured.
… And these people are buried in graves, with grave goods, not just thrown out or left behind in the wild.
Strong evidence of early human groups actually giving enough of a shit about their members to take care of the wounded, helps to be able to date early societal formation.
…substack.com/…/the-first-sign-of-civilization-ho…
Empathy and responsibility to care for others are actually the literal foundation of human society and civilization, contra to Musk and all the fascists and Christian Nationalists claiming ‘empathy is a sin’.