Comment on But I am mighty!!
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours agoYou must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates.
Comment on But I am mighty!!
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 hours agoYou must know how averages work. The poster is correct. Average age at death is a horrible metric when you have gigantic birth and infant mortality rates.
kerrigan778@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 hours ago
No, I mean that for the brunt of humans evolving to be genetically roughly what we are today, it is unlikely many people were living much past their prime. I am talking about roughly 100,000 years ago up to around 10,000 years ago when humans developed from a largely hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 hours ago
People who live a hunter-gatherer lifestyle today live 65+ regularly. The average may be lower for uncontacted peoples for various reasons, or higher because of reduced disease transmission. I imagine it depends on the group.
Now, I will give you that humans have refined their techniques of hunting etc over that 90k years in a way that caused less accidental deaths.
The crux of the matter though is that the statistical averages you have seen are flawed by infant mortality. In these societies, if you made it past toddler age you were statistically likely to live a long time.
What would be killing people much past their “prime” and how do you define prime?