Conversation

This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
Interesting. 🤔 Would you also say “no nature here, only politics” when making sense of how different amounts of human contact lead to different outcomes for young children?
Quote Tweet
Infants in hunter-gatherer societies carried by mothers as much as 90% of the time (similar to other primates) In 1970s America, skin-to-skin contact with mother was as low as 16% - might be considered child abuse by some societies. Similar issue: isolating sleeping children
Show this thread
2
2
This Tweet is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
re: naturalistic fallacy, fair I wouldn’t say “14-15 = optimal regardless of context”, but generally I think it’s pretty clear that lots of people (most?) living in modern cities are lonelier and more isolated than they would prefer to be, & this is bad for health/wellbeing
1
2
this is *exactly* backwards historically... the vast urban migrations of 19th and 20th centuries happened from small villages and towns... because people wanted to get the hell away from small community squalor (both material and psychological)
2
2
Show replies