@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 months agoThe Nature of Naturemander.xyzimagemessage-square31fedilinkarrow-up1873arrow-down117
arrow-up1856arrow-down1imageThe Nature of Naturemander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 2 months agomessage-square31fedilink
minus-square@IMongooselinkEnglish10•2 months ago50 actually seemed about right for me excluding infants so I looked it up. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/ That study looks at lifespan after reaching 5, and 50 might still be a little generous with the care that humans could provide each other 50,000 years ago. 50 is about the lifespan of a king 3,000 years ago, I can’t imagine gen pop faired better.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish3•2 months agoIt’s also a sample size of 15 all “King’s of Judah” which is already urbanised. But it’s good to see some decent data. It’s a nice irregular line from there on, and women do gain a lot more improvement than men. I wish I had access to scholarly journals still to do my own research, but I don’t so I’ll defer to your stuff for now. Thanks.
50 actually seemed about right for me excluding infants so I looked it up.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/
That study looks at lifespan after reaching 5, and 50 might still be a little generous with the care that humans could provide each other 50,000 years ago. 50 is about the lifespan of a king 3,000 years ago, I can’t imagine gen pop faired better.
It’s also a sample size of 15 all “King’s of Judah” which is already urbanised.
But it’s good to see some decent data. It’s a nice irregular line from there on, and women do gain a lot more improvement than men.
I wish I had access to scholarly journals still to do my own research, but I don’t so I’ll defer to your stuff for now. Thanks.