People Twitter

5383 readers

1420 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a tweet or similar
No bullying or international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

1804

There has to be another way (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

172 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Back when we lived to the ripe old age of 38.

(Im kidding, I know that was mostly due to infection and whatnot)

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The 'age of 38' thing isn't even due to infection ir disease, or even a thing at all. 38 was the average between the high number of infant deaths and the normal lifespan of someone who didn't.

Ok, women giving birth skewed it a bit too. Men didn't die in battle as much as people think, since most battles were decided when a small portion of the losing side died and the rest fled.

[–] MBM@lemmings.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Do we have numbers for the hunter-gatherer time that can even be skewed by infant deaths?

Edit: as it turns out, yes, absolutely. Wikipedia says the lifespan is around 21-37 years but 57% died before 15 and 64% of those that don't would also reach 45.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

Yeah, mid twenties to mid thirties tends to be the peak of human health and physcial fitness which would be true no matter what conditions are, so it would make sense that disease, accidents, and other trauma would be far less fatal during those ages.