Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Age of conception in pre-history?

  • 18-09-2012 11:54am
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14


    What was probably the typical age a woman would first conceive in pre-historic times before contraception etc?


«1

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Usually late teens going on modern hunter gatherer populations. Women in those societies start menstruating later than the agriculturists who followed and later again than the modern world average. Differences in nutrition(higher fat oestrogen mimics in the environment etc) seems to be driving this. Even in the western world the average age for first menses has dropped over the last couple of generations. From the link ;"A decline in the average age of menarche from 17 to 13 in Europe from 1850 to 1960 is well documented".

    So first conception would be average at 19. Subsequent numbers of children would be usually evenly spaced given the contraceptive effect of breast feeding.

    BTW and PS many modern hunter gatherer societies have some contraceptive techniques, barrier methods and the like and even sub cutaneous insertion of small pebbles in the male penis that shuts off the urethra(but can be retracted manually).

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14 In Bloom


    I'm not sure what to make of the fall in the age of menarche in Europe over the past 150 years. We obviously can't extrapolate this trend straight back to prehistory or we'd have to conclude that prehistoric women didn't menstruate until their twenties or later!

    How representative were the living conditions and diet of the girls in these statistics to those of our prehistoric ancestors?

    I think the high age of menarche back in the 1800's probably says more about 19th century society's inability to properly feed the masses than anything else. Since then, people have been getting better nourished and healthier and the age of menarche has fallen, returning more to normal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14 In Bloom


    Wibbs wrote: »
    So first conception would be average at 19.

    Where did you get this figure from?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,831 ✭✭✭Torakx


    Isnt this related to the hormones in our food also?
    Or maybe thats just the more extreme cases.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    In Bloom wrote: »
    I'm not sure what to make of the fall in the age of menarche in Europe over the past 150 years. We obviously can't extrapolate this trend straight back to prehistory or we'd have to conclude that prehistoric women didn't menstruate until their twenties or later!
    Obviously. The later menarche is found in current hunter gatherers, so it would be fair to suggest that people living the same lifestyle 20,000 years ago would be similar. Beyond that might be difficult to extrapolate as there is some odd things happening with longevity around 40,000 years ago. For some reason our species appeared to start to live longer, with no obvious change in lifestyle. Previous humans like Neandertal and Erectus seemed to have matured much earlier, so who knows when first conception kicked off in them.
    Since then, people have been getting better nourished and healthier and the age of menarche has fallen, returning more to normal.
    It depends on what you define as "healthy" and "normal". Over and above the very high childhood mortality, HG's as a general rule tend to be healthier than modern populations, indeed often healthier than the early farmers that replaced them. They have significantly less problems with cardiovascular disease, dental caries, diabetes(type 2), obesity, bone density, the list is long. The earlier age of menarche may be indicative of a not so normal development.
    Where did you get this figure from?
    I should have written "around 19" to be fair. If first menarche is on average 17-18 then it would follow that first conception is going to be around a year after that as periods and fertility settles down.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14 In Bloom


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I should have written "around 19" to be fair. If first menarche is on average 17-18 then it would follow that first conception is going to be around a year after that as periods and fertility settles down.

    Where are you getting 17/18 as the age of menarche in prehistory?

    Girls in the Kalahari tribe usually start menstruating at 16 despite their harsh lives out in the desert. I imagine our prehistoric ancestors would have generally lived in the greener areas of Africa, been better nourished with a lot more meat and fat in their diet which would have lowered menarche to about 14. Following the same pattern in the great apes, first conception would then be about 3 years after that at about 17.

    That's my thinking, anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Red Hand


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Obviously. The later menarche is found in current hunter gatherers, so it would be fair to suggest that people living the same lifestyle 20,000 years ago would be similar. Beyond that might be difficult to extrapolate as there is some odd things happening with longevity around 40,000 years ago. For some reason our species appeared to start to live longer, with no obvious change in lifestyle. Previous humans like Neandertal and Erectus seemed to have matured much earlier, so who knows when first conception kicked off in them.

    Don't know if you can compare modern hunter gatherers with hunter gatherers from thousands of years ago. Those that exist today may not be an accurate sample as they are greatly outnumbered and in territories that are not "prime territory". Agriculturalists, pastoralists and everything that has come after has either swallowed up or "converted" most of the prime territory of the hunter gatherers, with the remainder existing in areas that are on the edge, hard to get to or of little use (though not for long).

    You can't cheerfully extrapolate backwards.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14 In Bloom


    That's the difficulty in trying to understand the kind of society our prehistoric ancestors lived in. We can't just treat modern day hunter-gatherer societies as living fossils that perfectly represent prehistoric life.

    This is the mistake many people studying the Kalahari and Hadza tribes in Africa have made and come away thinking our ancestors lived in small egalitarian bands of 20-30, ate mainly plant food gathered by the women, rarely warred with their neighbours and that the girls didn't start menstruating until after the age of 16.

    This may be true for these people living out in the harsh desert regions but is that really the way our prehistoric ancestors lived?

    If I were to take a guess at what our prehistoric societies would have been like I would imagine something like this:

    Firstly, we wouldn't have lived out the desert :rolleyes:. That's not a human being's natural habitat. We would have generally lived in the green savannah regions near rivers, lakes and along the coast. These richer territories would have been able to support much higher population densities than the poor desert regions and would have led to more conflicts, violence and warfare.

    A lot of people are fond of pointing out the fact that in the Kalahari and Hadza tribes it's the women that bring home most of the food as if to imply that the women are somehow superior and paint the men as dumb and useless, though this is really unfair since there are few animals for the men to hunt in the poor desert regions that they occupy. In fact it's a testament to the ingenuity and physical skills of the men that they manage to catch anything. They are expert observers of animal behaviour, skilled in the use of hunting weapons and need the fitness level of a marathon runner to track down the few prey there are for hours on end.The women, by comparison, have it easy. All they have to is go to the nearest bush and pick some nuts or berries off it.

    For our ancestors living the green savannahs full of herds of grazing animals it would have been the men that brought home most of the food probably in about a 65/35 ratio i.e. the men would have brought home more than they consume.

    The size of the social groups they live in would have been much larger, probably 100-150. With these larger groups comes some level of social hierarchy and it's consequence, polygamy. In a tribe of 150, there would be a number of men with 2-3 wives and the very highest status man, the headman, may have had 5.

    The typical age of a woman's first conception would have been lower that in the Kalahari due to better nutrition and living conditions. The average Kalahari women conceives at about 19. Our prehistoric girl living in more human friendly regions would have first conceived at 17.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    So you had already had an answer based on as much conjecture as any other theory before you asked the question? Then suitably chuffed closed your account? Fair enough. Seems odd mind you.

    A couple of points;

    1 not all modern HG's live in near desert environments and no one suggests they do/did. Quite the number live in lush rainforest. Jungles of SE Asia for example. Others such as the Eskimo until recently lived in another form of desert.

    2 the male/female split in food gathering depends entirely on the environment, even so women tend to bring in as much as or more than the men. As far as calories go however as meat is generally more calorie rich the men bring in more on that score. Again it depends on the environment. Eskimo men bring in the lions share of calories.

    5 age of first menarche depends on many factors, both environmental and genetic. The aforementioned Eskimo living the HG lifestyle women matured early, around 13, possibly down to the high calorie diet. On the genetic front Pygmy women mature early even without such a diet around 13. Interestingly they mature faster overall(and die younger) and is one reason why they're so short.

    6 as for social group size this also varies depending on the culture and the environment. You can't just say "well I think our ancestors did X or did Y". Well you can, but for every example that followed that it's highly likely others didn't. Just as we see today in HG and indeed human groups overall. Goes double for reproductive strategies. Some cultures practice monogamy, some cultures don't.

    So age of first menarche in HG's of the past? Bit of a crap shoot. In those not genetically predisposed to early menarche(or later, though can't think of any) it would depend on environmental pressures depending on where they were living. EG European HG's in a similar environment and diet to Eskimos likely early, the same people in a more arid Levantine environment likely later.

    The most you can say about homo sapiens then and now is to observe how variable and adaptive we are with regards to food gathering, the diet itself, group size, group dynamics and reproductive strategies, so one size won't fit all.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23 The Beast of Bodmin


    Eskimos? WTF you bringing up eskimos for? First you thought Fred Flintstone lived out in the desert, now you're saying he lived on an iceberg? You some kind of fukking moran? :rolleyes:

    Anyway, I think In Bloom is right and about 17 was the typical age of first conception in prehistory. Given this, wouldn't it have been in a man's reproductive interests to go for girls UNDER 17, before they've been impregnated by any other men, so that they could have all of their breeding years to themselves?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The Beast of Bodmin infracted for personal abuse. Please refrain from personal abuse in the future (as per the charter, which you should read before you post again).


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Eskimos? WTF you bringing up eskimos for? First you thought Fred Flintstone lived out in the desert, now you're saying he lived on an iceberg?
    Maybe try reading the posts again? I never suggested "Fred Flintstone lived out in the desert", nor that "he lived on an iceberg". Others mentioned the Kalahari.
    You some kind of fukking moran? :rolleyes:
    Ironic.
    Anyway, I think In Bloom is right and about 17 was the typical age of first conception in prehistory.
    OK then, where? In which environment? Tropical rainforest, open savannah, temperate rainforest, steppes, sub polar regions? Modern humans and our ancestors(and previous human species) have lived in all those environments. People alive today living "prehistoric" lifestyles vary in the onset of puberty because of environmental and genetic differences, so why would that be different in the past?

    Hell people living in modern societies vary in the onset of puberty depending on environment. Even in what looks like the same environment on the surface. EG African American girls mature faster and have earlier menarche than European Americans. Like I said one size won't fit all. Ditto for reproductive strategies coming off the back of that.

    A few years back I read of an interesting study in New Scientist IIRC where different ethnicities in the US appeared to show different reproductive strategies. I'll try and dig up a link(though googling that should be fun). Again IIRC the study showed that African American women had more children at a younger age and outside of structured long term relationships more often. That's usually been seen as related to socioeconomic status, but the same pattern wasn't seen to the same degree among Hispanic or Asian Americans of the same socioeconomic background. European Americans of the same socioeconomic background were somewhere in the middle.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 Maximum Feels


    Anyway, I think In Bloom is right and about 17 was the typical age of first conception in prehistory. Given this, wouldn't it have been in a man's reproductive interests to go for girls UNDER 17, before they've been impregnated by any other men, so that they could have all of their breeding years to themselves?

    Yeah, that makes complete sense. If you imagine living in a small prehistoric society it's easy to see that committing yourself to a female and trying to get as many offspring from her over the long term would generally be the best and safest reproductive strategy, far more reliable and safer than being promiscuous. I mean, just imagine it, try and sleep around with too many mens' wives in the tribe and you'll get slaughtered :rolleyes:.

    Under this reproductive strategy, i suppose the best females to go for would those that are young and haven't been impregnated by any other men yet so that all of their breeding years would still lie ahead of them. BUT, at the same time, they shouldn't be too young, say like 5, because then you'd have to wait too long before they'd start giving you any offspring and you might die or something in the meantime. The best females would be those approaching their first pregnancy so that they would have all their breeding years ahead of them and the time you'd have to wait before they'd start reproducing would be at a minimum.

    Taking 17 as the typical age of first conception this would generally mean girls in the 12-16 bracket, right?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 Maximum Feels


    RIGHT?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,427 ✭✭✭Dr Strange


    RIGHT?

    There's no need for this. Keep to the discussion, please.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23 The Beast of Bodmin


    Taking 17 as the typical age of first conception this would generally mean girls in the 12-16 bracket, right?

    Yeah, that sounds about right. Young adolescent girls with pert tits, soft unused nipples and flat taut stomachs with no stretch marks would be the best females to commit yourself to.

    In fact,a lot of the reason the females of our species have evolved pert tits in their adolescent years is probably to advertise their nulliparity to the males. If you ever see some footage of a primitive tribe one of the first things you notice is that most the women have horrible saggy boobs and hard nipples from pregnancies and breast feeding. It's only the young adolescent girls that haven't been pregnant yet that have nice pert tits. This state of breast pertness is like an advertisement saying "Hey, look. I'm young and haven't had a baby yet! All my breeding years still lie ahead of me!". This is similar to the adolescent sexual swellings seen in gorilla females that disappear once they start reproducing.

    Another simple advertisement of nulliparity is a flat taut stomach with no stretch marks. I imagine this is a lot of the biological reason teenage girls like to wear short tops that show off their abdomens.

    221865.JPG


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Mod:

    Beast of Bodmin, I appreciate the point you're making with your post. Having said that, please remember that this forum is in the Science category, and as such there's a certain level of language required; vulgar language is not appreciated. If I receive a report about your post I may remove it after further consideration, but I would hope that those who read it acknowledge the points it makes, even if they're made in a rather colloquial way which may be offensive to some. Keep this in mind before you post again.

    Now, let's keep this on topic.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The pertness etc makes sense on the face of it, however looking at the cultural references of our prehistoric ancestors that have survived, pertness and flat stomachs are hardly the order of the day in how they represent women;
    Stone-age-venus-figures1.jpg
    The above are the diametric opposite of pert. Then again we don't know the meaning of these objects. Are they sexual/gender/motherhood ideals? Are they goddesses? They may(though unlikely) even be figures of fun or grotesques. In any event the massive and pendulous make up the vast majority of female figures of this time period across many cultures. There are skinny figures, but even these show steatopygia and (smaller)bellies.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23 The Beast of Bodmin


    Oh come on, Venus figurines look like fat, saggy, middle-aged women. They're unlikely to represent prehistoric man's ideal female. Like you say, nobody knows what they were for and we shouldn't try to use them to infer the sexual preferences of prehistoric men. To me they look more like symbols of abundance or a mother figure than prehistoric porn, but like any other interpretation that's speculative.

    In every modern-day hunter-gatherer society that anthropologists have studied, it's the pert, pre-motherhood, adolescent girls that are the considered the most attractive and i find it difficult to imagine that the societies of our prehistoric ancestors would have been any different, though i'm open to all ideas.


  • Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    Oh come on, Venus figurines look like fat, saggy, middle-aged women. They're unlikely to represent prehistoric man's ideal female. Like you say, nobody knows what they were for and we shouldn't try to use them to infer the sexual preferences of prehistoric men. To me they look more like symbols of abundance or a mother figure than prehistoric porn, but like any other interpretation that's speculative.
    .

    I don't think it's fair to write off the venus figures entirely. Although, I think we can all agree that we'll never know their true meaning. The figures have stylized exaggerations of female secondary sexual characteristics and are clearly not supposed to accurate depictions of real-life women. Our own cartoons often portray attractive women with exaggerated breasts and hips and tiny atomically impossible waists. I doubt many modern men would find a cartoon proportioned women to be especially attractive.

    We should also bear in mind that human child birth is very dangerous. That prehistoric men might have preferred mature, experienced mothers (and the anatomical changes that often go along with this)over young, inexperienced, pert breasted teenagers isn't impossible.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Oh come on, Venus figurines look like fat, saggy, middle-aged women. They're unlikely to represent prehistoric man's ideal female.
    Given how very common that image is, it's more likely than not that it may represent some sort of ideal.
    In every modern-day hunter-gatherer society that anthropologists have studied, it's the pert, pre-motherhood, adolescent girls that are the considered the most attractive
    Links please.
    Ziphius wrote: »
    We should also bear in mind that human child birth is very dangerous. That prehistoric men might have preferred mature, experienced mothers (and the anatomical changes that often go along with this)over young, inexperienced, pert breasted teenagers isn't impossible.
    Good point, while late teenaged women are more fertile, they're also more likely to suffer complications. From the link; "Pregnant teens are at much higher risk of having serious medical complications such as:

    Placenta previa
    Pregnancy-induced hypertension
    Premature delivery
    Significant anemia
    Toxemia

    Infants born to teens are 2 - 6 times more likely to have low birth weight than those born to mothers age 20 or older. Prematurity plays the greatest role in low birth weight, but intrauterine growth retardation (inadequate growth of the fetus during pregnancy) is also a factor".

    Women's bodily structure undergoes changes in late adolescence. Their hips tend to widen and they also tend to lay down more fat. Some tribal societies use a pre marriage period of "fattening up" of the bride to be to help offset some of the problems associated with potential first time mothers through increased nutrition. All in all and on average, from a physiological standpoint a 21 year old with more meat on the bones is going to be a better bet giving birth than a low body fat 16 year old.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    The Mauritanian practice of leblouh, while not pre-historic — it goes back about one millennia — is interesting nonetheless. Could it not be argued that larger females were, in a sense, "wealthier" (having better food and being fed more frequently, perhaps indicating a healthier individual more capable of raising a healthy child, for example), and thus more attractive? I might be talking rubbish here, but perhaps the Berber tradition, though only around for 1000 years, has its roots further in the past — it seems to me that the tradition might be "tapping into" a deeper, older aspect of the male.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,882 ✭✭✭JuliusCaesar


    It does seem to me that your view of female attractiveness, Beast, is very culturally-defined, and also of extremely recent origin! I can't think of any periods of history since the Minoan bull-dancers that
    teenage girls like to wear short tops that show off their abdomens
    . Even just look at art history - Rubens, for a start.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 23 The Beast of Bodmin


    Ziphius wrote: »
    I don't think it's fair to write off the venus figures entirely. Although, I think we can all agree that we'll never know their true meaning. The figures have stylized exaggerations of female secondary sexual characteristics and are clearly not supposed to accurate depictions of real-life women. Our own cartoons often portray attractive women with exaggerated breasts and hips and tiny atomically impossible waists. I doubt many modern men would find a cartoon proportioned women to be especially attractive.

    The difference is that our cartoon portrayals of sexy women generally exaggerate the adolescent form. They have impossibly pert breasts, tight stomachs and cute, fresh faces. If the Venus figurines also exaggerate what prehistoric men found found attractive then we'd have to conclude they were most attracted to saggy breasts and flabby stomachs. I find it difficult to imagine that their preferences were so different to modern men.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Given how very common that image is, it's more likely than not that it may represent some sort of ideal.

    Some kind of ideal but probably not an ideal of sexual attractiveness.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    Links please.

    Well, this is just common knowledge in anthropology :pac:. It's always the girls that have sprouted boobs but haven't yet been impregnated that are the most highly valued and desirable. It's common for tribal societies to have some special name for girls in this stage of their life. We have equivalent terms in our society such as "schoolgirls", "jailbait" or "young maidens" and "high-bosomed virgins" in fairy tales and mythologies.
    Wibbs wrote: »
    All in all and on average, from a physiological standpoint a 21 year old with more meat on the bones is going to be a better bet giving birth than a low body fat 16 year old.

    True, though i'm arguing that prehistoric men mostly chose females for the purpose of getting many offspring from them over the long term. Risks and downsides associated with teenage pregnancy would have been outweighed by possibility of getting more offspring from her over the long term.


  • Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    The difference is that our cartoon portrayals of sexy women generally exaggerate the adolescent form. They have impossibly pert breasts, tight stomachs and cute, fresh faces. If the Venus figurines also exaggerate what prehistoric men found found attractive then we'd have to conclude they were most attracted to saggy breasts and flabby stomachs. I find it difficult to imagine that their preferences were so different to modern men.

    Really? You think the likes of Jessica Rabbit are based on adolescent girls?

    Well, I don't think we do have to make those conclusions. Perhaps, prehistoric men were attracted to large breasts, broad hips, and -- yes -- some abdominal fat. Having extra fat would surely have been a sign of affluence and good health in a hunter gatherer society.

    True, though i'm arguing that prehistoric men mostly chose females for the purpose of getting many offspring from them over the long term. Risks and downsides associated with teenage pregnancy would have been outweighed by possibility of getting more offspring from her over the long term.

    Well, one of the major downsides associated with teenage preganancy would have been death of the mother. I think it's naive to assume that a species as socially complex as Homo sapiens would have had only one type of mating strategy.

    Cuckoldry is very common in "monogamous" pair breeding species. I imagine prehistoric humans, as with modern humans, would have been no different. Look at it this way: who would the low ranked male rather mate with? The well-off, 30 year old wife of the chief who has raised half a dozen children and has many resources or teenage girl with no experience of childbirth and no resources?


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Mod:

    Beast of Bodmin,

    I've permanently banned your dupe account "Maximum Feels" from the forum, as well as awarding you with another infraction. I'm being very lenient because this is an interesting discussion. If you break this forum's charter or this site's rules one more time I'll be permanently banning you from this forum, and I'll do my best to get you banned from this site as well. This is your final warning so please take note and quit acting about.

    Now, back on topic.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,027 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    The difference is that our cartoon portrayals of sexy women generally exaggerate the adolescent form. They have impossibly pert breasts, tight stomachs and cute, fresh faces. If the Venus figurines also exaggerate what prehistoric men found found attractive then we'd have to conclude they were most attracted to saggy breasts and flabby stomachs. I find it difficult to imagine that their preferences were so different to modern men.
    As JuliusCaesar noted this seems (most strongly) to be your(and your sockpuppet accounts) particular POV, dare I say fetish.
    Some kind of ideal but probably not an ideal of sexual attractiveness.
    Then an ideal of what?


    Well, this is just common knowledge in anthropology :pac:.
    So no links then?
    We have equivalent terms in our society such as "schoolgirls", "jailbait" or "young maidens" and "high-bosomed virgins" in fairy tales and mythologies.
    M'kay... Dunno what versions of the brothers Grimm you may have been reading.
    True, though i'm arguing that prehistoric men mostly chose females for the purpose of getting many offspring from them over the long term. Risks and downsides associated with teenage pregnancy would have been outweighed by possibility of getting more offspring from her over the long term.
    Eh no, if there are increased risks of death, then more offspring tend to be up in the air at that point.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22 Unlimited Bacon


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Eh no, if there are increased risks of death, then more offspring tend to be up in the air at that point.

    I think the point he's making is that even taking these risks into account, an adolescent girl would have made a better choice of partner simply because she would have had more breeding years ahead of her. Sometimes, it would go horribly wrong and she'd end up dying in child birth or something but, on average, a man that committed himself to an adolescent bride would have ended up leaving behind more offspring than a man who committed himself to an older female.

    In any case, i can't believe that teenage pregnancy could have been that dangerous for our prehistoric ancestors otherwise genes for teenage fertility would have been quickly selected out :rolleyes:.


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    Mod:

    The Beast of Bodmin/Maximum Feels/Unlimited Bacon,

    Stop closing your account and re-opening another. Stop using multiple accounts to sock-puppet. Stop acting like I have no idea that you're doing this. I'll give you one, final warning, in the hope that it gets through to you:

    Stick with this account. Quit sock-puppeting. If you close this account and open another then you, as a person, will never post in this forum again, and it's likely you'll have a difficult time posting on Boards again. I've been incredibly lenient with you — some have said far too lenient, and perhaps they're right. If you were trolling in a more active manner I'd have banned you long ago.

    If you wish to discuss this topic then do so with this one account, keeping in mind the forum charter and keeping in mind my previous warnings to you.

    Edit: It seems other than heed my numerous and generous warnings, Unlimited Bacon (and all other aliases) spurned my offer and continued to troll. User perma-banned.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭Ziphius


    In any case, i can't believe that teenage pregnancy could have been that dangerous for our prehistoric ancestors otherwise genes for teenage fertility would have been quickly selected out :rolleyes:.

    Child birth has also become a lot safer now, so perhaps genes for teenage fertility have only been selected for recently.

    To change the topic slightly. Is there any evidence that the average of menopause has changed? Menopause has been hypothesized as a way for women to avoid the risks of child birth while at the same time helping their offspring and grandchildren thus increasing their inclusive fitness.

    Would this have occured earlier in the past, say mid thirties, due to lower life expectancy?


Advertisement