The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
because we've been told that these hunter-gatherers have these short life expectancies and as i've talked about with chris ryan and other people on the podcast clearly this is wrong and it's it's confounded by higher rates of infant mortality when humans are living in the wild
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
don't you understand those are two are related and the infant mortality of 21 actually is what's confounding the life expectancy of 33 years old and making it look like they have a life expectancy of 33 years old when in fact if you make it to your teenage years as a hunter-gatherer whether it's in the messiah tribe or the ikong or the hadza you live to be the same age as we do in the united states