• DarkGamer@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    From an evolutionary standpoint we just have to survive long enough to reproduce, if we can’t eat past age of reproduction there’s no evolutionary pressure to change that.

    Thank goodness for modern dentistry.

    • Hawke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months 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.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Generally sure. We’ve certainly evolved to want to be around for a while after reproduction though, for example human infants are completely worthless. That doesn’t mean we need to be top notch, but we do need to exist sufficiently to get children to even the most brutal, basic independence.

      Compare that to something that hatches then is already just adulting, like many reptiles.

      I think the keyword is precocial vs altricial

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

        Especially considering how reliant we humans are on knowledge, without the previous generation teaching us we’re pretty well doomed.

        Old people would have been highly valued just because they’re sitting on decades of knowledge and wisdom, in an age without permanent records of information grandma would have been the only source of information about the past, and would presumably spend most of their time just sharing that knowledge with everyone else.