Nobody dies “naturally” of old age at 38.
But genetically we were originally nomads, and AFAIK the nomads of a 100000 years ago, had a far shorter average lifespan than after we settled and began farming. Also people of nomadic tribes in the rain forests of South America today, often don’t live longer than that on average AFAIK.
When we look at animals, it is also not uncommon that a tamed animal pet can live twice as long or more than they usually do in the wild. For humans if modern environment has similar impact compared to the harsh life as a nomadic people, the double of 38 is 76 years, and that’s pretty close to our average lifespan today.
So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the claim outright, but the article is very thin on details on the science of how they arrived at this apart from “DNA”.
But genetically we come from nomadic tribes, and AFAIK the nomads of a 100000 years ago, had a far shorter average lifespan than after we settled and began farming.
This is mainly because of child mortality. When you get five children, of which two live to be 78 and 89 and the other three die at ages of 2, 14, and 8, your children’s average lifespan is 38,2 years. Typically, you either died very young, or you lived old. And the average is, well, the average of those. Basically nobody died around the age of 38.
Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.
Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy:
That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago. The ratio of older to younger remains doesn’t mean a whole lot unless you can prove death from old age.
It’s not like we have a plethora of remains to draw these conclusions from.
That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago.
Yes actually it does, above 30 would be an outlier.
Of course genetically they had about the same potential as modern people, but life was simply too harsh for people to survive above 30. The struggle to survive meant they were simply worn out at that point.
We see this even today in nomadic tribes in the rain forest of South America.
Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy
In this article it is, though. That’s why they use the phrase “average lifespan”. There is no “average” in maximum.
In the article the phrase “average lifespan” is used in the meaning “average life expectancy”.
Nobody dies “naturally” of old age at 38.
But genetically we were originally nomads, and AFAIK the nomads of a 100000 years ago, had a far shorter average lifespan than after we settled and began farming. Also people of nomadic tribes in the rain forests of South America today, often don’t live longer than that on average AFAIK.
When we look at animals, it is also not uncommon that a tamed animal pet can live twice as long or more than they usually do in the wild. For humans if modern environment has similar impact compared to the harsh life as a nomadic people, the double of 38 is 76 years, and that’s pretty close to our average lifespan today.
So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the claim outright, but the article is very thin on details on the science of how they arrived at this apart from “DNA”.
This is mainly because of child mortality. When you get five children, of which two live to be 78 and 89 and the other three die at ages of 2, 14, and 8, your children’s average lifespan is 38,2 years. Typically, you either died very young, or you lived old. And the average is, well, the average of those. Basically nobody died around the age of 38.
Tribal nomads of 100000 years ago did not live anywhere near to their 60’s.
AFAIK they rarely lived beyond 30.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy-of-ancient-humans-44847
Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy:
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan
So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve.
Life expectancy would probably have been around 15.
That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago. The ratio of older to younger remains doesn’t mean a whole lot unless you can prove death from old age.
It’s not like we have a plethora of remains to draw these conclusions from.
Yes actually it does, above 30 would be an outlier.
Of course genetically they had about the same potential as modern people, but life was simply too harsh for people to survive above 30. The struggle to survive meant they were simply worn out at that point.
We see this even today in nomadic tribes in the rain forest of South America.
In this article it is, though. That’s why they use the phrase “average lifespan”. There is no “average” in maximum.
In the article the phrase “average lifespan” is used in the meaning “average life expectancy”.