Some popular books suggest that hunter-gatherers were healthy. This historical study finds that 49% of children in the studied hunter-gatherer societies died during childhood: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812001237 … Is there competing evidence that suggests that the popular books are right?
-
-
Can‘t believe Harari says that. Reference, please?
-
His book Sapiens?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Do you mind elaborating?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And, ironically, its probably the smartest hunter-gatherers that switched to agriculture. Work smarter!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
One antivaxxer quoted that Hunter gatherers had higher average life span than us. Without accounting for the infant mortality and early deaths. The whole argument boiled down to : if you were not killed and did not get sick, you would live long.
-
People want to live hunter-gatherer lives but also want the internet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think the idea is that reliable calories were seductive and increased birth rate and infant survival, but quality of calories fell so had greater impact in later life. Hence reduced infant mortality but decreased longevity.
-
I mean, I bet if we just killed the weakest half of children now, average longevity for people who make it to adulthood would go way up. Seems to be a bit of a selection bias in the claim.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@rcbregman would love you to chime in in this conversation. Your book Humankind argues the opposite. - End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.