brennan
Argumentative Brit
54,000 out of 100,000 make it to 5, but only 24,000 of them make it to 50.Does that include all females born or just all females who lived past infancy?
54,000 out of 100,000 make it to 5, but only 24,000 of them make it to 50.Does that include all females born or just all females who lived past infancy?
Malnutrition prevents pregnancy.They don't? Huh, news to me. How do they avoid it?
Why do you think this doesn't agree with me?No it doesn't.
So because sourcing the internet is bad, we just make things up as we go!You may recall my earlier statement on using the internet. The funniest part being that I could support my argument using the exact same source you just used to "refute" it.
Well... they _sort of_ did as I understand it, but that nursing phase is thought to have been 2-3 years each. Breastfeeding likely was a somewhat reliable method of birth control under the conditions that they lived, so while you were having a child, you were just not very likely to become pregnant again, which naturally staggered the rate of the pregnancies.Women in hunter-gatherer societies don't seem to spend their fertile years in this permanent cycle of pregnancy and nursing.
So it does which means it's not necessarily an accurate statistics taken at face value. A lot of those babies died due to crap that is entirely an artifact of settled life that has little to do with our 'natural' life expectancy.54,000 out of 100,000 make it to 5, but only 24,000 of them make it to 50.
They're malnourished? I thought they spent most of the day sitting around and relaxing? Or is it that they do that because there isn't more food to be had without farming?Malnutrition prevents pregnancy.
Partly by managing their own reproductive cycles, as women have always done, whether or not men have understood what was going on. But partly it's because the body tends not to devote as many resources to fertility if it isn't assured a stable and consistent supply of nutrients, so the cycle of plenty and dearth naturally tended to break up pregnancies. A woman's menstrual cycle will become irregular and even halt if her body fat drops low enough, and while we today tend to think of this as a problem exclusively affecting anorexics and body-builders, it seems pretty clear that it's an evolutionary adaptation to dearth. Agriculture, for all the havoc it wreaks on human health, is pretty good at ensuring a stable supply of nutrients for ten or twenty years at a stretch.They don't? Huh, news to me. How do they avoid it?
Generally hunter-gatheres got pretty good nutrition. I read Bushman consumed 40 or 50 different types of herbs in the course of a week. I barely ate a single vegetable til I was a grownup.Malnutrition prevents pregnancy.
Why do you think this doesn't agree with me?That's exactly what you'd expect. The full sentence is:
Of those who reached the age of 22 52% of men reached 52 and 39% of women reached the age of 52.
So roughly half of the people who lived past child and infant mortality and reached 22, continued to live to 52. That seems pretty normal for a natural life expectancy of ~50.
So because sourcing the internet is bad, we just make things up as we go!
Quite a lot of such societies are nomadic - I don't think it's quite that idyllic. And hunter-gatherer societies may have less protection in the lean times, there's a reason we all researched pottery...I thought they spent most of the day sitting around and relaxing?
Huntergathers faced many dangers and but outside of those their overall health and fitness would put ours to shame.
there's a reason we all researched pottery...
Let's think about this logically. How could it possibly be that if we look at the people who lived to 22, and then compare two populations... one population of which 52% reach 52 and one population of which 39% reached 52 could add up to roughly 50% here?No, apparently we just get to make things up as we go because we just do. Such as "52% of men reached 52 so roughly half of the people continued to live to 52." You cited a source, quoted it, and THEN made up some crap and attributed it to your source. Or are you joining the "only men really count" brigade?
Well now, there's a good question that I (and probably Arakhor) would like an answer to. We seem to have lost focus...By the way, what's the actual topic of discussion of this thread?
Well now, there's a good question that I (and probably Arakhor) would like an answer to. We seem to have lost focus...
A small hint to help you figure out the solution:Because the average of 52 and 39 isn't close to 50?
A small hint to help you figure out the solution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_arithmetic_mean![]()
So a man who nags his wife to have sex with him for hours until she finally gives in even though she's not really in the mood, is not emotionally abusing her in your opinion? He's not coercing her into a sexual act?![]()
I mean, it's not that hard, really. Rome had a lop-sided sex ratio.Math teacher in me says: show your work.