• Hawke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month 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.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      “grandparents”

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

      • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

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

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          18th century france is also quite possibly the single worst place and point in time to use as a comparison, there’s a reason people beheaded monarchs.

      • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month 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.

      • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          From what i’ve read and heard about the subject, the life expectancy generally looked something like this back in the hunter-gatherer days:

          You were very likely to die as an infant, pretty likely to die before puberty, after that you were likely to make it to 40-50, and it wasn’t that rare to reach 70.