this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
327 points (87.8% liked)

science

20310 readers
574 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Better doesn't always equal faster.

Better can equal going further.

Better can equal being more efficient.

Efficient means using less calories to do the same thing.

[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure. But you then need to show the data that supports those points

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Can you please show us what connects your data to being a success as an endurance hunter? Because "men hold more records running a specific distance faster than women do" is not in any way an indication of hunting success.

Do you think Olympic target shooters make the best hunters when it comes to guns and bows?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Another factor is, with endurance hunting, you will need to carry the carcass back to home base. So let's take am antelope, which weighs 125 kg. You need the hunters to bring that all back to base, AFTER the multi kilometer hunt is over.

However, as far as portaging, women are very adept at that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head-carrying

Olympic shooters would make the absolute worst hunters, have you actually seen them shoot? It's a test of hand eye coordination to hit a paper target.

[–] Murvel@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I never said anything about exactly what makes a good hunter. I was making a counterpoint to the quote of the article