|
|
|
|
|
|
by globe1337
2863 days ago
|
|
|
You're right it's not a good argument. A better argument would be taking a look at how long humans have been afflicted by things like heart disease, diabetes, and different types of cancer. I'll give you a hint, they're relatively recent developments in the history of our species. RE: Dying by 40, how much of that data takes into account infant deaths and things like clean running water? I don't think early humans were dying from "artery clogging saturated fat" and if that was the case, wouldn't we have generally evolved not to eat things that killed us? |
|
|
I'm not convinced that's true, evolution only works to improve fertility; e.g. women after menopause have no evolutionary purpose. Even for men it's not clear why a longer life-span would result in increased reproductive success (maybe men have most/best children when they're young?).
Although I must admit it's surprising that there wasn't more evolutionary pressure to increase the "health-span" of people (i.e. women's fertile years, and men's and women's "peak physical performance" years) - maybe having too many children isn't a good thing (decreases genetic diversity pool and is thus bad for the whole species), or there was another kind of evolutionary trade-off (e.g. human females "waste" eggs by having a "concealed" ovulation every month, instead of being "in heat" (like in dogs) or by ovulating only after sex (like in cats); however, this allows for other evolutionarily beneficial adaptations [1]).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_ovulation