• DarkGamer
      link
      fedilink
      6918 hours ago

      From an evolutionary standpoint we just have to survive long enough to reproduce, if we can’t eat past age of reproduction there’s no evolutionary pressure to change that.

      Thank goodness for modern dentistry.

      • @Hawke
        link
        English
        47
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        That’s completely untrue.

        Evolution applies to the entire lifespan — if we could “reproduce” but died in childbirth every time, our species would have gone extinct long ago.

        Parents and grandparents also contribute greatly to the success of a child long long after they’re born, helping to ensure it also survives to reproductive age.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -3317 hours ago

          “grandparents”

          Life expectancy in 18th century France was in the 20s, grandparents are optional

          • @PoopingCough
            link
            English
            5817 hours ago

            I don’t disagree with your overall point, but statistics like that are almost always heavily skewed because of high infant mortality rates

            • snooggums
              link
              English
              2217 hours ago

              The mortality rate during childbirth was pretty high for women on top of the infant rate. Childbirth as a whole dragged the numbers down.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                57 hours ago

                The mortality of mothers only became a big issue between doctors being in charge of birth and hand washing becoming a rule

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  34 hours ago

                  The domestication of storks has also led to fewer deaths upon delivery. I wish to also add something to this thread of reddit factoids.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            29
            edit-2
            17 hours ago

            [Edit : It turns out people have said the same thing while I was looking for the right source to confirm my point, so I guess this comment’s a bit redundant now. Still leaving it in case someone’s interested]

            The number’s correct but…

            Child mortality The most significant difference between historical mortality rates and modern figures is that child and infant mortality was so high in pre-industrial times; before the introduction of vaccination, water treatment, and other medical knowledge or technologies, women would have around seven children throughout their lifetime, but around half of these would not make it to adulthood. Accurate, historical figures for infant mortality are difficult to ascertain, as it was so prevalent, it took place in the home, and was rarely recorded in censuses; however, figures from this source suggest that the rate was around 300 deaths per 1,000 live births in some years, meaning that almost one in three infants did not make it to their first birthday in certain periods. For those who survived to adolescence, they could expect to live into their forties or fifties on average.

            So reaching 50 wasn’t too rare for someone who had survived childhood, and given how people often started having children younger then, that was well enough to be grandparent. Doesn’t mean everyone would’ve gotten to known their grandparents, but it wouldn’t have been super rare either.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1217 hours ago

            A reminder that life expectancy in ancient history was so low not because people generally croaked by 40, but because of how many children died young.

            It’s an average, not a maximum. People regularly lived into their 70s and 80s hundreds of years ago.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        Generally sure. We’ve certainly evolved to want to be around for a while after reproduction though, for example human infants are completely worthless. That doesn’t mean we need to be top notch, but we do need to exist sufficiently to get children to even the most brutal, basic independence.

        Compare that to something that hatches then is already just adulting, like many reptiles.

        I think the keyword is precocial vs altricial

    • @finitebanjo
      link
      English
      411 hours ago

      Actually a bigger contributor is underdeveloped jaws due to no longer requiring to chew from.a very young age for nutritional requirements.

      • db0
        link
        fedilink
        English
        26 hours ago

        Why would stronger Jaws prevent teeth decay?

        • @finitebanjo
          link
          English
          -44 hours ago

          Why would not having developmentally impaired mouth including teeth, muscle, and bone be beneficial for longterm resilience?

          Idk dude, figure it out. Some people, I swear.

          • db0
            link
            fedilink
            English
            44 hours ago

            Wow, are you always this much of an asshole when people ask you questions?

              • lad
                link
                fedilink
                English
                129 minutes ago

                “The hole ass is strong with this one”

            • @finitebanjo
              link
              English
              -64 hours ago

              Why does being mean to you make me an asshole? (This is a facetious question)

              • @Lux18
                link
                English
                23 hours ago

                You’re insufferable

                  • lad
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    328 minutes ago

                    “But what about others being insufferable?”

                    A bit of a missed point

              • db0
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                (This is a facetious question)

                At least we agree on your assholery then.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2018 hours ago

      They just didn’t evolve to consume so much sugar.

      Bro, eating oranges puts our tooth enamel in a weakened state. If we were designed, it was by an idiot.

      • @Hawke
        link
        English
        518 hours ago

        Oranges do not naturally have that much sugar.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1717 hours ago

          It’s not the sugar, but the acid that our teeth can’t handle.

          The fact that healthy foods can’t be consumed without a risk of harm is not an intelligent design.

          I mean, even apples (i.e. “Garden of Eden”) can promote the growth of plaque!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            Cane and Abel tells us the gods don’t like vegetable farmers, that want meat

            Meat doesn’t damage your teeth

            Incidentally the damage from sugar is fermentation - it makes carbonic acid (the stuff that makes soda fizzy) which is a weaker acid than citric

            Citrus didn’t make it to Europe quickly - it came from China

            • flicker
              link
              English
              816 hours ago

              If an all-knowing creator didn’t want humans to eat fruit from a specific tree, he shouldn’t have grown that tree in the only garden he had humans in.

              • @Aermis
                link
                English
                614 hours ago

                Missing the point of obedience by choice.

                • flicker
                  link
                  English
                  -17 hours ago

                  Oh, right. The obedience only matters if you have to make yourself do it. It doesn’t count if it’s natural and painless and costs you nothing. Can’t believe I forgot about that?

                  • @Aermis
                    link
                    English
                    24 hours ago

                    It doesn’t seem you believe in much. Be at peace with your natural choices. There will always be a cost

          • @Hawke
            link
            English
            7
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            Oranges don’t exist naturally, was the point I was making. Theyre a hybrid, derived at least partly from pomelo.

            • Fushuan [he/him]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              515 hours ago

              You are right, it’s just that in Spanish a “pomelo” is a grapefruit, and I was unaware of the whole rabbit hole that is the hybridwtion of the pomelo, mandarin, citrus and all that. I deleted my old comment because I was just confused.

              • @Hawke
                link
                English
                214 hours ago

                No worries, I don’t know all the details and looking more deeply, it looks to be more complicated than I was remembering too.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      018 hours ago

      Half our expected lifetime was our expected lifetime back when they evolved. Teeth are doing quite well, all things considered.