• village604
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    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.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      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.