- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topics
- Tests
- Magazine
- Psych Basics
- Blogs
- Diagnosis Dictionary
Another common misperception about science, which is held even by many social scientists, is that, both in our ancestral past and in many developing nations today, people die at a much younger age than they do in contemporary western industrialized nations. They assume that, for example, the average life expectancy of 40 years means that most adults die at or around the age of 40. Contrary to this misconception, most adults, both in our ancestral past and in many developing nations today, live to be about as old as people do in western industrialized nations. Read More
Excellent Post
Well done. This is a point very few scientists (much less non-scientists) really understand. It's generally taken as a given that people typically died in their 30s or 40s in prehistory. This is bunk, as you explain very well.
Ok, but wouldn't the
Ok, but wouldn't the astronomically high rate of women dying in childbirth w/o the benefit of modern medicine skew life expectancy numbers a bit lower overall, as well?
Childbirth
No. Because those deaths would have been spread out over many more years. So they get blended in with all the other life-risk fatalities like men getting eaten by Sabre Tooth tigers during the hunt.
Early childhood deaths were concentrated into the first few years of life. So if a kid got to age 4 or 5, he had a much better chance of making it to old age.
The statistical reliability term for the phenomenon is called the "Bathtub Effect". I.e. the "failure rate" starts high, then quickly diminishes to a low mostly flat rate for years then increases with aging. Plot that and you have your bathtub.
Question?
Is there then an increased level of genetic adaptability in the children that do survive? It seems to make it past childhood in a third world country you may have to posess genes that are superior for survival, as oppossed to in industrialized nations where we have the technology to keep sickly children alive. It seems like babies who survive despite lack of modern medicine might actually be healthier adults than many in industrialized countries. I supect you see less disability or immune problems because those children simply did not make it.
Evolution today
It would be interesting to hear more about evolutionary pressures on man today, I assume that in Western society it's mostly decided by how many children different people end up having rather than survival.
As the point made by the farcical movie Idiocracy, does selection work against genetic traits of those taking higher education?
Why do wealthy and highly educated people have so few children? Is there any advantage of having a few very rich children (sons?) than split the resources on a large number of offspring? Or is this just an example of the Savannah principle, where contraceptives appeared to work against our unprepared genes?
I appreciate that you give attention to common misunderstandings with science in general and evolutionary psychology in particular. A controversial but informed blog.
Where is your proof of this?
Where is your proof of this? It is to be expected that life expectancy would have been much shorter at every age because of poor nutrition and health care.
How do you argue with this,which clearly shows a different view?
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/patterns.htm