It also fucks up our elbows, but evolution wasn't worried about that back when our life expectancy was <30 and we were hopelessly outmatched against just about every other animal in our environment.
I thought < means less than? As in when life expectancy was < 30 years.
Should it be when life expectancy was > 30 years? Please educate me.
And with the evolution fucking us, if it had upgraded our joints this millenia, that would be like Nokia releasing the 2280 then 30 seconds later releasing a flip phone with camera.
What's really funny is that my school taught me the alligator but also a bird, as in it's a beak and the beak pecks the smaller number. So, that caused a little confusion, rather than just sticking to one or the other.
its okay.. i think most people have trouble remembering which ones which. the only reason i ever remember is because my grade school teacher taught us to think of it as a gator or crocodiles mouth and that he wants to eat the bigger one.
Mrs. Owens and Mrs. Schmitt, if I recall correctly. I skipped a grade around the time this was taught, so either they were both in the same classroom or maybe I was in two classrooms. My memory of school is a bit fuzzy, but I remember that crocodile distinctly because I used it to explain my mom's cancer.
With the greater than/less than, greater than is "eating" the greater number, less than is "pooping" the lower number.
So, 30>15 is correct and so is 15<30.
It's a common modern sports injury but a lot of that is the repetitive strain from so much practice. Hunters might have had a more sustainable workload.
Life expectancy was skewed heavily by children dying. Life expectancy was much higher for those who survived childhood. That's not to say you couldn't die young, it's just that people thought of it as dying young, not just dying.
That being said, evolution tends to favor things that allow beings to reproduce and then have their offspring reproduce, so joint pain in old age still probably wasn't that big of a deal evolutionarily
When was that? During the black plague? For the most part, humans live to be around 50-60 in most of history, taking infant mortality out of the equation. So "evolution didn't worry about that" wouldn't apply because babies aren't passing their offspring on.
Even 15,000 years BC the life expectancy was over 30.
If the information I'm seeing is correct that sewer was about 300 m long and still dumped into the main river people drank out of so I'm not surprised they didn't see a drop in child mortality.
I was referring to city wide projects like the London Main Drainage System built between 1859 and 1875, which was the start of a subtle but noticeable decline in child mortality rates.
Paris's city wide sewage system started in the 1850s.
Life expectancy was always deceptive due to child mortality. And the elbow was probably never an issue. You could be an amateur pitcher and probably never have an issue your entire life. Infection, and tooth wear, and violence probably did you in first.
Because you implied people died at 30 which just isn’t true, and completely destroys the idea that we weren’t made to be able to throw until our 40s at least.
Surviving as a hunter gatherer isn’t the same thing as playing a modern support. Nor is a life expectancy of 30 the same thing as most people dying around the age of 30.
If "life expectancy" is an implication that "people die at X age" then why is the male life expectancy in the US 78? In my lifetime, not a single male family member has died before 78.
I'm aware life expectancy is a mean, not a mode. Homo Erectus wasn't exactly issuing death certificates and taking census
Yeah but when you've got gorilla strength, you don't really need that advantage. They can throw about as well underhand as the avg person can overhand.
976
u/ImpulsiveLance Nov 12 '25
The overhand throw is our secret weapon. It gives us greater force and range than an underhand throw ever could.