So why do hunter gatherers & neolithic's Have short lifespans?

[kurite]

Hey im sure some of you already read that other thread that said socialization is the killer of them. No offence to the writer but that is complete b.s. But it made me wonder why do hunter gatherers & neolithic's Have short lifespans?

[pc701]

because they work hard and therfore wear-out their body sooner than modern people who work not as hard. Hardore excercise will only waste energy and reduce your lifespan-my theory.

[aunaturale]

Environment? Dont know much about climate during those
times, but environment surely plays a factor.

[goodsamaritan]

Hey im sure some of you already read that other thread that said socialization is the killer of them. No offence to the writer but that is complete b.s. But it made me wonder why do hunter gatherers & neolithic's Have short lifespans?

Depends on how you do the counting.
today we have:
- no predators
- emergency medical facilities
- less hunger
- civilization
- as for counting of years, the calendars are different
- climate then? who knows?

[Hannibal]

there was no way to protect all of the elderly
there was high mortality of babies
there was harsh environment with plethora of predators
if someone got injured (e.g. broken leg) there was no way to protect him/her as it is today

[wodgina]

The Australian Aborigines don't look too young in NAPD. I would say their 70 odd at least. No baldness either but we've already been there.

Maybe bones of Paleo or HG's look appear younger than Neolithic's because of superior diets.

[TylerDurden]

Women were more likely to die in childbirth in palaeo times. Men went in for perpetual warfare with other tribes which also didn't help. Plus, people would commonly die from what we view as minor injuries such as a broken leg.

[livingthelife]

Women were more likely to die in childbirth in palaeo times.

Don't have any data on paleo childbirth, but apparently a properly nourished woman of good genetic stock (with a healthy psychology) can give birth easily. The idea that childbirth was a horrible and deadly affair is only true for early "civilized" women. Now it's just typically horrible (prolonged and painful with intervention required) but not deadly thanks to hospitals

Not that paleo childbirth, or any childbirth, was always easy or without causalities, but childbirth events were probably not a big factor

My guess is that accidents and climate exposure were probably the most deadly

I've also read about and watched a program that depicted the practice among nomadic groups of abandoning the sick and the elderly in "hospice camps" - the group would move on without them, leaving them with a small store of food and some supplies if they couldn't cross a river, climb a mountain, keep up, etc. There were no attempts to help them. In the program, no one, including the elderly, seemed upset about it.

[TylerDurden]

Don't have any data on paleo childbirth, but apparently a properly nourished woman of good genetic stock (with a healthy psychology) can give birth easily. The idea that childbirth was a horrible and deadly affair is only true for early "civilized" women. Now it's just typically horrible (prolonged and painful with intervention required) but not deadly thanks to hospitals

Not that paleo childbirth, or any childbirth, was always easy or without causalities, but childbirth events were probably not a big factor

My guess is that accidents and climate exposure were probably the most deadly

I've also read about and watched a program that depicted the practice among nomadic groups of abandoning the sick and the elderly in "hospice camps" - the group would move on without them, leaving them with a small store of food and some supplies if they couldn't cross a river, climb a mountain, keep up, etc. There were no attempts to help them. In the program, no one, including the elderly, seemed upset about it.

I'm afraid you're mistaken re this. The reason given for lower female lifespan than men is the increased risk of death from childbirth. You see, female humans, being bipedal and having to give birth to babies with vastly increased skull-size compared to the rest of their bodies, have a greater risk of birth-complications than wild animals as the latter have vaginas more conveniently situated, further back.

[livingthelife]

vastly increased skull-size compared to the rest of their bodies

The size and configuration of a woman's pelvis is a critical factor for human birth

I'm not comparing human birth with *other* animal births, I'm comparing paleo, pre-modern and modern human childbirth

In any case, a nourished woman with a properly developed pelvis will have a better chance of ease in childbirth, so go paleo! 

[cherimoya_kid]

The size and configuration of a woman's pelvis is a critical factor for human birth

I'm not comparing human birth with *other* animal births, I'm comparing paleo, pre-modern and modern human childbirth

In any case, a nourished woman with a properly developed pelvis will have a better chance of ease in childbirth, so go paleo! 

Ignore Geoff.  He refuses to pay attention to all evidence to the contrary to his idiosycratic view of this subject.  I've pointed out Dr. Price's information about Eskimo women giving birth easily on their native diets.  He ignores it.  I don't know why.

[TylerDurden]

Ignore Geoff.  He refuses to pay attention to all evidence to the contrary to his idiosycratic view of this subject.  I've pointed out Dr. Price's information about Eskimo women giving birth easily on their native diets.  He ignores it.  I don't know why.

  I don't deny that a HG diet would make childbirth a little easier for women whereas a modern, junk-food diet would make things worse. All I'm saying is that a raw, palaeolithic diet would have been far more effective than most HG diets(most of the latter are neither raw nor palaeo) and that, because of hominid evolution re orientation of the pelvis, human women are poorly equipped to give birth by comparison to wild species.

[William]

We have short lifespans because we are fools.

We read paleo forums in an attempt to become wise.

[RawZi]

    My grandmother had a tough life.  She worked hard throughout, but most of the work in a house.  She didn't have to face lions, tigers or bears.  Her husband (my grandfather) worked hard too and could be violent and inflict injury with his bare hands (not to her).  They didn't have computers etc.  They made me lots of blood aunts and uncles, no bums, with all their appendages, eyes etc.  My grandmother gave birth to them at home breach births and all, no still births nor miscarriages, no scalpels, needles nor thread.  She led a normal lifespan, and so did he, no short ones.  I think the deciding factor is that there were no animals to bite them and there was a roof and walls, and of course working well with society's rules at the time.  Also there was no bc pills disrupting sexual hormones and the gov told ppl to completely wrap up bf'ing ea. baby by twenty wks (we ovulate if we stop nursing).  


edited at 8:45 AM Eastern to correct grammar of first sentence and add a short sentence near the middle.

[jessica]

you guys need to get out in the woods and try to build a cabin...on a hillside
hike in basic food and tools(saws/hatchets, ropes to drag trees, these are all tools that can be made from nature as well, another skill in its self) fetch your own water, if you are skilled set traps/fish/hunt, fell your own trees, let them dry or try to drag them freshly cut(heavy!), the process of building a shelter to accommodate a small family is extremely laborious if you are not a hunter with large pelts to throw over your shelter leaves or thatch imagine putting up a roof! and also having wood for nightly fires for heat, even this small portion of labor will be very humbling, the learning curve in nature is very steep you will realize how ill adapted but quick to learn a civilized mind is to the "dangers" and also processes of this work and experience but how with time you ease into nature.  this is just one of the small basic hurtles, imagine having to break down shelter and travel miles over and around hills /rivers, hunting food, packing, being in the elements, being part of a small tribe and having to sustain others, spending all time with tribe working on and fixing tools, ropes, clothing, what to do about injuries(dont get them, be smart!)

you will have no question as to why life spans were shorter, yes the bodies and health was much greater, but also the labor more rigorous and consistant....it is extremely humbling to experience this and also helps to solve all these questions without having to ask google!  ask the spirit through experience.....

[William]

The point I have tried (and failed) to make is that a mere 90 years of lifespan is not proven to be a long life compared to a reasonable estimate of paleolithic lifespan.

While there is only one record of paleo lifespan, there is no way that these well-fed people living a leisurely life could have had a short life.

Those who truly believe that paleoman had a short lifespan have been fooled.
Those who have been fooled and don't know it are properly called fools.

[roony]

you guys need to get out in the woods and try to build a cabin...on a hillside
hike in basic food and tools(saws/hatchets, ropes to drag trees, these are all tools that can be made from nature as well, another skill in its self) fetch your own water, if you are skilled set traps/fish/hunt, fell your own trees, let them dry or try to drag them freshly cut(heavy!), the process of building a shelter to accommodate a small family is extremely laborious if you are not a hunter with large pelts to throw over your shelter leaves or thatch imagine putting up a roof! and also having wood for nightly fires for heat, even this small portion of labor will be very humbling, the learning curve in nature is very steep you will realize how ill adapted but quick to learn a civilized mind is to the "dangers" and also processes of this work and experience but how with time you ease into nature.  this is just one of the small basic hurtles, imagine having to break down shelter and travel miles over and around hills /rivers, hunting food, packing, being in the elements, being part of a small tribe and having to sustain others, spending all time with tribe working on and fixing tools, ropes, clothing, what to do about injuries(dont get them, be smart!)

you will have no question as to why life spans were shorter, yes the bodies and health was much greater, but also the labor more rigorous and consistant....it is extremely humbling to experience this and also helps to solve all these questions without having to ask google!  ask the spirit through experience.....

The same applies today, you have farmers & settlers to this day, using traditional methods of labour, build cabins, huts etc., by hand, AND still subsist on raw paleo foods, with NO electricity, still live as they did hundreds of years ago, yet theyre lifespans easily hit 80-100

They still contend with predators & natural prey, especially in the thicker areas like jungles & open landscapes


As for emergency medicine, most tribes & primitives, have far superior health & medicine, thanks to their access to REAL medicine in the wild, such as herbs & salves they pick fresh


As a rule, i never trust anthroplogists, they continously come up with crackpot theories based on very little real world evidence

[livingthelife]

As a rule, i never trust anthroplogists, they continously come up with crackpot theories based on very little real world evidence

from David Macaulay's Motel of the Mysteries

[William]

The same applies today, you have farmers & settlers to this day, using traditional methods of labour, build cabins, huts etc., by hand, AND still subsist on raw paleo foods, with NO electricity, still live as they did hundreds of years ago, yet theyre lifespans easily hit 80-100

Who are these who eat raw paleo foods?

[roony]

I'm afraid you're mistaken re this. The reason given for lower female lifespan than men is the increased risk of death from childbirth. You see, female humans, being bipedal and having to give birth to babies with vastly increased skull-size compared to the rest of their bodies, have a greater risk of birth-complications than wild animals as the latter have vaginas more conveniently situated, further back.

Not true, if a woman gives birth in the correct position, risk of birth complications drops quite low

The most dangerous way for a woman to give birth is on her back, do the research

[TylerDurden]

Not true, if a woman gives birth in the correct position, risk of birth complications drops quite low

The most dangerous way for a woman to give birth is on her back, do the research

  Even taking that into account human childbirth is still more difficult than birth among wild animals. The simple fact is that for women to walk upright they can't have pelvises that are wide enough to allow large-skulled human babies to pass through easily.

[jessica]

Those who truly believe that paleoman had a short lifespan have been fooled.
Those who have been fooled and don't know it are properly called fools.

dude honestly 90 years?
there were elders but how many attempts at birth and also percentage that died at a younger age and what is the ratio of those that survive to old age and those that perished earlier?  i am not going to say i know but i am going to say that, for paleopeople, life was difficult in the most fulfilling of ways

[roony]

dude honestly 90 years?
there were elders but how many attempts at birth and also percentage that died at a younger age and what is the ratio of those that survive to old age and those that perished earlier?  i am not going to say i know but i am going to say that, for paleopeople, life was difficult in the most fulfilling of ways

I thought we were referring to lifespands, not infant mortality rates

Tribal & primitives always have superior infant mortality


Pelvis & childbirth's have very little to do with complications, i can go into specifics if you like, healthy women rarely have complications, tribal women laugh at childbirth ...

[PaleoPhil]

...As a rule, i never trust anthroplogists, they continously come up with crackpot theories based on very little real world evidence

Yet I tend to trust the input of anthropologists who study hunter-gatherers or the Paleolithic era more than physicians and most other scientists, because they've seen the low levels of chronic disease among hunter-gatherer people or skeletons and they therefore tend to know that much of today's conventional wisdom about eating tons of cooked grains being healthy is bogus. From what I've seen, the majority of scientists who support Paleolithic nutrition are anthropologists.

[roony]

Yet I tend to trust the input of anthropologists who study hunter-gatherers or the Paleolithic era more than physicians and most other scientists, because they've seen the low levels of chronic disease among hunter-gatherer people or skeletons and they therefore tend to know that much of today's conventional wisdom about eating tons of cooked grains being healthy is bogus. From what I've seen, the majority of scientists who support Paleolithic nutrition are anthropologists.

Anthropologists get a large number of factors wrong, mainly because its a field based on theories based on very little evidence, its basically a pseudo science


Archaeology & more recent evidence based fields are far more accurate & far more useful

Check out lloyd pye, he lists the fields & sciences which correctly date & catalog