Did Humans live longer 10000 years ago?

[Papayapple]

What do you think about this? https://youtu.be/kOMYESk0ozs?t=31m

Is there a definite evidence supporting this guy's claim?
I've heard it from various other resources too.

[Marblehead]

I think that if an honest research were done on that topic you would find that the opposite is true.

[Papayapple]

Maybe this sort of convictions that we tend to have right now are coming from a deep realization that "something definitely went wrong" and we are seeking the long lost paradise.

 

It goes along with other uber interesting stuff, such as the age of pyramids, temples and giant stone figures.

 

I'm sure these things were discussed on the forum previously, but I cannot find the topic right now.

This author sucked me for good on the stuff

[thelerner]

Don't want to listen to all 1 hour 40 minutes, but I doubt people lived longer 10,000 years ago.  I'd put forward that traditional culture/tribes relatively untouched in Africa and South America might be free from many of the modern plagues that kill us, but have a wide host of there own killers and don't live as long. 

 

Antibiotics, modern medicine and overall greater cleanliness have helped alot.  Though we may have crappy diets, during inevitable bad years, we don't starve.  Your healthy tribe during single or multiyear drought, they do. 

 

Course longevity isn't everything.  Living healthy without disabilities is pretty important too, and there might be lessons worth listening to from such tribes and our way way back.

Edited July 14, 2016 by thelerner

[Marblehead]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

[Papayapple]

 

There are also erroneous ideas in the article cited---which is to say, it cites increased brain size as a correlate with agrarian living; in fact, brain size is correlated---just negatively (decreased in agrarian peoples). So part of its narratizing of history is also disconcerting to me.

That is what Daniel is saying too.

 

Marblehead, I don't think wikipedia is a valid source of knowledge in such matters. Would you send a wikipedia qigong article to somebody who's trying to find out what are internal arts all about?

[Nungali]

A different view but in a similar area from a more reliable source

 

" ... archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. " 

 

http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race

[Nungali]

I saw a doco last night on world's best diets.  France scored high - but they eat lots of red meat, cheese, bread, alcohol - but little crap food, they prefer it fresh and local, produce cycles through rapidly, they also eat a lot of duck fat and other good fats, have a good balance of poly and unsaturated fats .... and take two hours for lunch to relax, appreciate, enjoy, settle and have 2 glasses of wine.

 

Remember these ?  What the world eats - 1 family in 1 week ; 

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=what+the+world+eats&espv=2&rlz=1C1CHBF_enAU699AU699&biw=1366&bih=667&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidv-2Y_fTNAhWBs5QKHZs5CesQ_AUIBigB&dpr=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think Turkey topped it ? 

 

 

 

 

( except for the Coke hidden under the table   )

Edited July 15, 2016 by Nungali

[Papayapple]

http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race

 

"Hunter-gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c. 1500 B. C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on the average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth)."

I like that part

 

[Marblehead]

 

Marblehead, I don't think wikipedia is a valid source of knowledge in such matters. Would you send a wikipedia qigong article to somebody who's trying to find out what are internal arts all about?

 

Hehehe.  That is a common response when someone doesn't agree with the Wiki article.  It just means you are not ready to accept alternate information that might destroy your present understanding.

 

When I searched for a response (because I have done none of the research myself) there were many different studies I could have linked to that fully support what Wiki presented.

 

My only request is that if we continue with this discussion I would ask that you present data from reliable sources, and qualified personnel, who have different bottom line findings.

 

Our life expectancy has indeed increased over time due to greatly increased knowledge of sanitation and medical treatment and disease prevention.

 

Causes of death have changed but life expectancy has increased.

[Marblehead]

A different view but in a similar area from a more reliable source

 

" ... archaeology is demolishing another sacred belief: that human history over the past million years has been a long tale of progress. In particular, recent discoveries suggest that the adoption of agriculture, supposedly our most decisive step toward a better life, was in many ways a catastrophe from which we have never recovered. " 

 

http://discovermagazine.com/1987/may/02-the-worst-mistake-in-the-history-of-the-human-race

So my response question would be:  Why has the human population exploded so much after the discovery of agriculture?  I mean, if agriculture was a catastrophe we would have seen negative results.  But no, what we have seen is the increase in life expectancy as well as a population explosion.

 

I will await a response.

[blue eyed snake]

So my response question would be:  Why has the human population exploded so much after the discovery of agriculture?  I mean, if agriculture was a catastrophe we would have seen negative results.  But no, what we have seen is the increase in life expectancy as well as a population explosion.

 

I will await a response.

 

well, personally I see he explosion of humankind as a race as catastrophic for mother earth. we're far exceeding what she can give us and that's the road to destruction or severe diminishing of the human race.

 

regarding wiki, i do not really doubt the graph presented, but these are means.

 

in our current age, the risk of dying very young ( under 5) has diminished greatly (at least in the west). The risk of dying of childbirth (for the females) and of being killed by your prey (probably mainly for males) has also diminished ( although males seem to make up somewhat for that by engaging in risky behaviors, boys will be boys  )

 

so this clearly heightens the mean age.

 

but when looking at older times, i can very well imagine that when you got past those precarious first years, after that surviving the birth of several children/ series of dangerous hunts/ years of drought and hunger/ years of raging sickness...if you survived to say about 40, that this select group could very well live to become a 100 or more in a very good health.

 

so the means presented in the wiki page is (to me) not incompatible with the idea of living  to be very old in older times, but only for a select group of inherently healthy and lucky people.

Edited July 15, 2016 by blue eyed snake

[Marblehead]

well, personally I see he explosion of humankind as a race as catastrophic for mother earth. we're far exceeding what she can give us and that's the road to destruction or severe diminishing of the human race.

 

That's a different topic but I would totally agree with you.

 

regarding wiki, i do not really doubt the graph presented, but these are means.

 

Averages.

 

so the means presented in the wiki page is (to me) not incompatible with the idea of living  to be very old in older times, but only for a select group of inherently healthy and lucky people.

 

Yes, generally it were only the wealthy who attained the older ages.  But still, when included in the calculations for an average the few who lived a long life did not increase the average very much at all.

[Papayapple]

 

 

Yes, generally it were only the wealthy who attained the older ages.  But still, when included in the calculations for an average the few who lived a long life did not increase the average very much at all.

 

But isn't that because the death rate of newborn children, stillbirths and maternal deaths was much greater?

Given that people didn't have anti-conception and probably had random copulation more often.

 

The thing is, (I think) that it's about the food and lifestyle relationship to our genetic predispositions.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Papayapple

[Marblehead]

But isn't that because the death rate of newborn children, stillbirths and maternal deaths was much greater?

Given that people didn't have anti-conception and probably had random copulation more often.

 

The thing is, (I think) that it's about the food and lifestyle relationship to our genetic predispositions.

You are venturing into areas where I have no first hand knowledge.  I would have to investigate the studies in order to find the parameters the investigation considered.

 

I just did another search:

 

Present day world population is 7.4 billion and birth:death ratio is greater than 2:1

 

In the year 1 AD the world population was 300 million.

 

In the year 8000 BCE (beginning of agriculture) it was 5 million.

 

That appears to be a pretty significant increase to me.

[Michael Sternbach]

Maybe this sort of convictions that we tend to have right now are coming from a deep realization that "something definitely went wrong" and we are seeking the long lost paradise.

 

It goes along with other uber interesting stuff, such as the age of pyramids, temples and giant stone figures.

 

I'm sure these things were discussed on the forum previously, but I cannot find the topic right now.

This author sucked me for good on the stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc62Y86fuP4

One current thread where different perspectives regarding lost civilisations are being expressed is this one:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/39928-atlantis/

 

There again, we see the old dichotomy between the rationalistic scientific and the intuitive occultist view. This exists in other, non-historical areas as well, to be sure. What it boils down to, IMO, is that we tend to find evidence and interprete it in keeping with our beliefs. It is not (just) the other way around.

 

The idea that there was a time when humans used to live much longer than today belongs into that same category. You find such statements in the Bible and in channelled texts by Edgar Cayce, Jane Roberts and other psychics. It seems to tie in directly with lost civilisations. The underlying concept being that humanity hasn't primarily evolved from a more primitive state to the height of modern Man (as conventional history would make us believe), but has descended from a state more exalted in many ways, even losing almost all its knowledge of the latter. Ancient cultures such as the Greek and Indian ones held this belief.

 

Undeniable evidence for that may indeed be found one day - when humans will be ready for it. That is, if and when they have re-ascended again sufficiently on the collective level. Which should go hand in hand with a reconciliation of the scientific with the occultist approach.

[cmpunk50]

One of the things that come to my head while reading this thread is Vitamin C. Most creatures on the planet produce their own from glucose. Humans, guinea pigs, fruit eating bats, and some others can't produce their own. The RDA now is only enough to prevent scurvy. But there numerous processes that require it. Take a look at Linus Pauling's work. He was a well respected nobel scientist, but once he started studying Vitamin C and produced his results, he was blacklisted from the scientific community (despite his proof from his experiments, and his own proof. He had a condition where he was suppose to die, but Vitamin C helped to prolong his health far longer than he expected). 

 

The lack of producing vitamin C was probably due to a genetic mutation, and since the vitamin is in other foods, the mutation became the norm. Or someone was able to modify the DNA of the human race. Or maybe during the great flood, when there were only a handful of humans left, the gene was lost

 

Either way, I find it fascinating.