magfrump comments on What should I have for dinner? (A case study in decision making) - Less Wrong

23 Post author: bentarm 12 August 2010 01:29PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (106)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Psychohistorian 16 August 2010 04:50:43AM 0 points [-]

On the one hand, the existence of food that would keep humans healthy significantly past reproductive age has only been selected for in the past 10,000 years.

This is a flat-out misunderstanding of human history. The existence of female menopause, plus substantial evidence from existing hunter-gatherer tribes, suggest that longevity is adaptive. In tribes studied, post-menopausal women gather far, far more than their daily calorie intake, helping their descendants by providing extra resources. The reason prehistoric man had a low life expectancy is more due to high infant mortality than dying early. If long lives were not evolutionarily relevant, the existence of human menopause makes even less sense than it currently does.

Comment author: magfrump 16 August 2010 06:11:11AM 0 points [-]

I would like this whole comment thread a lot more if anyone linked to any studies or at least blog posts or books on amazon or something detailing where they got their ideas from (I don't mean to be picking on anyone I just have very little knowledge of the subject and I'm curious where people got their first notions of things like "there exists a good diet which will make people feel healthier and live longer by a significant margin")

Comment author: Psychohistorian 17 August 2010 04:18:31AM 1 point [-]

My source is a book, and thus not terribly accessible. As Alicorn points out, menopause makes sense, but its existence strongly suggests enough women lived long enough for it to actually be selected for. It is not common in other animals.