• atocci@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    148
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Wait what’s the deal with the horses? I want to feel good about myself today.

    Edit: Wow, those bastards have it rough.

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      194
      ·
      3 months ago

      Their genetics have sacrificed nearly every aspect of basic resiliency for maximum speed on the plains. Most of the work caring for horses is keeping them from accidentally killing themselves. Full disclosure: I worked as a stable hand as a child in exchange for riding lessons. Will never ever own a horse.

      • LennethAegis@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        114
        ·
        3 months ago

        To add on why broken legs are fatal: its because horses are so big, that even with a sling, they cannot support themselves well on 3 legs. And lying down is also not an option as their own weight will crush their internal organs if they stay down for too long.

        • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          61
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh, wow, I had always thought that shooting a horse with a broken leg was an act of brutal expedience, not mercy.

        • frosty99c@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          27
          ·
          3 months ago

          Also, don’t they need to run to move food through their digestive tract? Or to force themselves to cough if they have something stuck in their lungs? I think there is some sort of dependency of basic functions that relies on the movement of their lungs/stomach going back and forth while running that they can’t easily do if they just stand in one place all day

        • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          3 months ago

          Also their blood gets pumped through their hooves, and to much weight on one hoof can impede blood flow through their body.

        • Eiri@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I thought horses not being able to lie down for long was just competition horses! It’s all of them?

          • LennethAegis@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s not just horses, all large mammals have this problem from lying down too long. Horses can and do lie down every day, but for short periods of time. It’s the extended lying down from illness or injury that kills them.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              do humans count as large mammals? pretty sure we have at least very similar problems if we lie down for ages, hence why people who are bed bound have to be moved around regularly.

              • LennethAegis@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                You mean bedsores, yeah its a pretty similar cause. The difference is that bedsores only cause damage to the skin from lack of blood flow caused by the extended pressure from lying down. While in horses, the extended pressure from lying down leads to poor blood flow in not just the skin, but the muscles and organs nearby too.

                And yes, you can turn horses over too, but it takes multiple people and is really dangerous to everyone involved, so its not an action to be taken lightly.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean, humans run around on something that birds would consider knees, and stupidly try to support their entire body weight using only half their legs.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        Humans have multiple toes because our ape ancestors used their toes like fingers. Having multiple, separate toes is probably bad for survival unless you’re using toes to manipulate tools.

        Animals that have distinct toes include apes, geckos, mice, raccoons and similar animals which need them to grip onto surfaces or to manipulate things. There are predators which have separate toes because they’re a place to mount claws: eagles, cats, etc. There are animals that have separate toes with webbing between for swimming. But, for a lot of animals, separate toes aren’t really useful, so they’ve evolved away: elephants, rhinos, giraffes, horses, cows, etc.

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, but at least most of those still have multiple toes to spread the weight around. Horses decided to get rid of that completely.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Spreading the weight around using toes doesn’t seem to be a useful strategy. It’s also not something that humans do. Human toes are not at the weight-bearing part of the foot. And, while I’m sure toes are somewhat involved in agility, having individual toes doesn’t seem to be. In fact, if you look at apes like gorillas and chimps, it’s pretty clear that our toes have been getting shorter and less important as we’ve been evolving as upright-walking creatures who don’t live in trees. Instead, the sole of the foot, which used to be much more like the palm of a hand, has been getting longer and sturdier.

            If you have separate toes, you have multiple fragile things that can break or be torn off. If you have one mega-toe it’s going to be sturdy. That’s probably why the heaviest animals have the fewest / smallest toes.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              As someone who goes barefoot whenever possible, i can tell you that the idea of toes not being particularly useful for agility is very incorrect. If i have to restrict my toes i feel like dogs do when you put booties on their paws, so incredibly clumsy.

              The toes play a large part in keeping your balance, making minor corrections to your weight distribution, and especially the big toe is pretty significant when pushing off the ground.
              Try walking (or even running) around with your toes lifted off the ground, it’s very awkward.

              The problem is that a lot of people these days are constantly wearing shoes that make their toes useless, and even when not wearing such shoes their toes have been squeezed into a pointy shape (bunions are almost entirely caused by this) and become weak from atrophy. A healthy foot has toes splayed quite wide and the toes will be pretty strong and probably a lot thicker than you’re used to, look at baby feet for a rough example.

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I mostly go barefoot too, and the shoes I have are “barefoot shoes” that have extremely thin soles. But, I still don’t think the individual toes are that important to grip. Sure, the toe pads are important. If you’re moving on the balls of your feet, I’d guess maybe 30% of your weight is in your toes. But, I don’t think I’m getting much contribution to agility from my baby toe being splayed out. If I glued my toes together, I think it wouldn’t hurt my agility much, and it would mean I’m much less likely to catch that individual, fragile baby toe on a corner.

        • Eiri@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Tbh if I could I think I would turn on the gene for prehensile feet.

          Just to try. Looks fun.

            • Eiri@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Oh yeah I pick up stuff with them sometimes but I wanna try the monkey experience lol

    • DarkGamer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      81
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      From an evolutionary standpoint we just have to survive long enough to reproduce, if we can’t eat past age of reproduction there’s no evolutionary pressure to change that.

      Thank goodness for modern dentistry.

      • Hawke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        66
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s completely untrue.

        Evolution applies to the entire lifespan — if we could “reproduce” but died in childbirth every time, our species would have gone extinct long ago.

        Parents and grandparents also contribute greatly to the success of a child long long after they’re born, helping to ensure it also survives to reproductive age.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          48
          ·
          3 months ago

          “grandparents”

          Life expectancy in 18th century France was in the 20s, grandparents are optional

          • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            65
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t disagree with your overall point, but statistics like that are almost always heavily skewed because of high infant mortality rates

            • snooggums@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              The mortality rate during childbirth was pretty high for women on top of the infant rate. Childbirth as a whole dragged the numbers down.

              • psud@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                The mortality of mothers only became a big issue between doctors being in charge of birth and hand washing becoming a rule

                • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The domestication of storks has also led to fewer deaths upon delivery. I wish to also add something to this thread of reddit factoids.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              18th century france is also quite possibly the single worst place and point in time to use as a comparison, there’s a reason people beheaded monarchs.

          • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            [Edit : It turns out people have said the same thing while I was looking for the right source to confirm my point, so I guess this comment’s a bit redundant now. Still leaving it in case someone’s interested]

            The number’s correct but…

            Child mortality The most significant difference between historical mortality rates and modern figures is that child and infant mortality was so high in pre-industrial times; before the introduction of vaccination, water treatment, and other medical knowledge or technologies, women would have around seven children throughout their lifetime, but around half of these would not make it to adulthood. Accurate, historical figures for infant mortality are difficult to ascertain, as it was so prevalent, it took place in the home, and was rarely recorded in censuses; however, figures from this source suggest that the rate was around 300 deaths per 1,000 live births in some years, meaning that almost one in three infants did not make it to their first birthday in certain periods. For those who survived to adolescence, they could expect to live into their forties or fifties on average.

            So reaching 50 wasn’t too rare for someone who had survived childhood, and given how people often started having children younger then, that was well enough to be grandparent. Doesn’t mean everyone would’ve gotten to known their grandparents, but it wouldn’t have been super rare either.

          • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            A reminder that life expectancy in ancient history was so low not because people generally croaked by 40, but because of how many children died young.

            It’s an average, not a maximum. People regularly lived into their 70s and 80s hundreds of years ago.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              From what i’ve read and heard about the subject, the life expectancy generally looked something like this back in the hunter-gatherer days:

              You were very likely to die as an infant, pretty likely to die before puberty, after that you were likely to make it to 40-50, and it wasn’t that rare to reach 70.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Generally sure. We’ve certainly evolved to want to be around for a while after reproduction though, for example human infants are completely worthless. That doesn’t mean we need to be top notch, but we do need to exist sufficiently to get children to even the most brutal, basic independence.

        Compare that to something that hatches then is already just adulting, like many reptiles.

        I think the keyword is precocial vs altricial

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Especially considering how reliant we humans are on knowledge, without the previous generation teaching us we’re pretty well doomed.

          Old people would have been highly valued just because they’re sitting on decades of knowledge and wisdom, in an age without permanent records of information grandma would have been the only source of information about the past, and would presumably spend most of their time just sharing that knowledge with everyone else.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      They just didn’t evolve to consume so much sugar.

      Bro, eating oranges puts our tooth enamel in a weakened state. If we were designed, it was by an idiot.

        • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s not the sugar, but the acid that our teeth can’t handle.

          The fact that healthy foods can’t be consumed without a risk of harm is not an intelligent design.

          I mean, even apples (i.e. “Garden of Eden”) can promote the growth of plaque!

            • flicker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              If an all-knowing creator didn’t want humans to eat fruit from a specific tree, he shouldn’t have grown that tree in the only garden he had humans in.

                • flicker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Oh, right. The obedience only matters if you have to make yourself do it. It doesn’t count if it’s natural and painless and costs you nothing. Can’t believe I forgot about that?

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Cane and Abel tells us the gods don’t like vegetable farmers, that want meat

            Meat doesn’t damage your teeth

            Incidentally the damage from sugar is fermentation - it makes carbonic acid (the stuff that makes soda fizzy) which is a weaker acid than citric

            Citrus didn’t make it to Europe quickly - it came from China

          • Hawke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Oranges don’t exist naturally, was the point I was making. Theyre a hybrid, derived at least partly from pomelo.

            • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              You are right, it’s just that in Spanish a “pomelo” is a grapefruit, and I was unaware of the whole rabbit hole that is the hybridwtion of the pomelo, mandarin, citrus and all that. I deleted my old comment because I was just confused.

              • Hawke@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                No worries, I don’t know all the details and looking more deeply, it looks to be more complicated than I was remembering too.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Actually a bigger contributor is underdeveloped jaws due to no longer requiring to chew from.a very young age for nutritional requirements.

    • kittehx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Half our expected lifetime was our expected lifetime back when they evolved. Teeth are doing quite well, all things considered.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    The breathing and eating tubes gotta cross so you can blow with your mouth and choke on cock. Non-negotiable.

    • daltotron@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      You could still probably blow with your mouth if you didn’t have your lungs connected, I imagine it would involve a kind of burping type of action. I think the bigger problem would be that if your nostrils closed up, you wouldn’t be able to breathe, and probably also talking would be a lot harder if your vocal chords and mouth were separate from your main air sacs.

      I think the solution is probably just an easily opened and closed internal valve that separates the stomach and the lungs, rather than this bullshit we currently have with two separate valves that lead into both and open for one and then close for the other whenever it’s required. It’s still good to be able to close both when you want to, but you can already close your mouth on command, and another valve with the nose is a notable upgrade in that it keeps everyone from smelling bad smells they don’t wanna smell, and it also doesn’t take any more valves than we already have.

      There’s probably some way you could fix this all with enough surgical intervention, I bet…

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Its only a valve. Topologically speaking, the passage from the mouth to the anus only constitutes one hole.

    The passage of air into the lungs is not a hole however, that is a cavity. Same difference with the vagina, that’s not a hole, that’s a cavity.

          • accideath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            Tbh, I was kinda hoping for someone with better biology knowledge than me to correct me. Thanks.

            • coffee_whatever@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Important note, if you take a straw that separates into two split straws (kinda in a “Y” shape) that from a topological point of view is two holes, because one is for one of these paths, and the other is an extruded hole on the side of the first path. In topology you can’t break or mend material, but you can pull, stretch, squeeze and move it all you want. So you can move one of the split straw “legs” to the bottom of the whole straw, getting a shape similar to a “V”, it would look pretty much like a pair of pants. And topologically speaking it would be exactly the same. So… One straight hole for your mouth all the way down to your anus. Another two are there for your nostrils, that’s 3 already. The rest are for your tear ducts, which have two holes on the edge of your eye, (so four in total) which merge and then connect to your nose.

              So a human, from a topological perspective, is just a seven holed doughnut. Also Vsauce made a great video about that, with pretty great animations.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          I am well aware that people have three topological holes. Matter of fact, I proved that years ago.

          In this case, I only referred to one topological hole, from mouth to anus.

          I never mentioned the nose, nor was that part of the topic in question.

          • accideath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Nose is two. Your butt isn’t one. Or rather, your mouth and nostrils would be the entrance and your butt is the combined exit of those three holes. If you don’t count the nostrils, you only have one hole. A hole always goes through something, otherwise it’s just a cavity. And also, holes only count from one side. Your butt and mouth are the same hole, just from different ends.

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Nose is only one hole, topologically speaking. You can run a string from one nostril to the other.

              One topological hole.

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Nose is only one hole homie, runs from one nostril to the other. It takes the mouth to add a secondary orifilce. And it takes the anus to add a third orifice.

              Topology for ya.

              • accideath@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Doesn’t matter which way you turn it, the result is the same. As you count it, your first hole is nostril to nostril. I count mouth to anus as hole one and then add the left and right nostrils as secondary and tertiary orifices. Having a nose ads two holes to the total count. If you had no nose, you‘d have one hole, if you only had a nose, you’d also only have one hole.

            • Match!!@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              oh! but then why is it three holes and not nostril-to-mouth as a hole and other-nostril-to-butt as another hole, or some other combination

              • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Quick illustration:

                Nostrils:
                ___________
                _________  |
                _________| |
                _________  |
                Mouth:   | |
                \________| |
                 ________  |
                /        | |
                         | |
                         | |
                         | |
                         | | 
                         | |
                Butthole:
                

                That is 3 holes in total because you can “connect” any opening with 3 different one’s.

    • pancake@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      No, the vagina is topologically a hole, as the uterus with the Fallopian tubes has two direct openings into the abdominal cavity (another objectionable “design” choice).

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Depends on the state of your esophagus, doesn’t it? If it’s closed (which it mostly is) then your mouth and nose holes go to your lung cavity. Your anus is also part of a cavity that goes through your intestines all the way up your throat and stops at your esophagus.

  • psud@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    The teeth thing is just because of our high sugar, high grain diet

    The first* people with bad dental health were Egyptians as they lived on bread (which packs your teeth and feeds the bacteria that ferment it and make acid) before that, and until the invention spread, people died of old age with all their teeth intact

    I eat very low carb - almost entirely meat due to allergies, and haven’t had a cavity since I started doing that, despite me nearly never brushing or flossing my teeth

    *There were also people who lived in the tropics and ate a lot of fruit, and those with sugar cane.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You’d think. But where does the bad smell come from?

        My understanding is it’s from overactive bacteria; I don’t feed my mouth bacteria with food that makes them smell

        At least my partner still kisses me

        • Eiri@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          I do intermittent fasting.

          My breath stinks quite a bit on days I don’t eat. The bacteria develop very well on those days, since they’re not being washed off as often. And that’s before “keto breath” even comes into play.

          Point is, your mouth bacteria are fine producing all sorts of “charming” smells even without food.

          You probably do stink. The two of you are just used to it.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            How do you think you can know when your breath is bad and I can’t?

            You didn’t say what you feed your mouth bacteria aside from saying you only do so occasionally.

            • Eiri@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s just a really well-known phenomenon. People thinking they don’t stink because it’s the smell they’re used to. I’m just speculating, and there’s of course a chance I’m wrong.

              As for how I know I stink, i have a much keener nose than the average. I can tell when my hair stinks because it’s been too long since my last shampoo, for instance, a thing most people can’t even tell about others apparently. Even though it’s the grossest smell ever.

              But even then, most of the time I can’t tell my breath stinks. It probably has to do with how close the mouth is to the nose. Mostly, I’ve associated sensations in my mouth with instances where I was told I stunk and work from there.

              As for what I eat, oh yeah, I absolutely do eat carbs a normal amount. But I really don’t think this should have much of an effect when I’m not eating. I have trouble imagining bacteria having a stock of food for when I don’t eat.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        brushing your teeth doesnt do much for bad breath. You want to clean the rest of your mouth to get rid of that, which is probably what they do.

    • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      I thought Egyptians had bad teeth because their flour was ground with sandstone, leaving sand in their bread. They ground their teeth into nothing by eating sand.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I feel like the sand thing was a guess by people who couldn’t pick why ancient Egyptians had worse teeth than everyone else in the ancient world

        If there’s sand in your food you notice and it feels bad. It’s not something that makes you go “oh well I’ll just keep chomping” and that would wear teeth down, not give them abscesses

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Similar. I don’t eat low carbs, just almost no bread, and my teeth never get cavities

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I note that birds, which evolved eating grains, don’t have teeth

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Birds originally did have teeth. Beaks are thought to have replaced teeth because they serve the same purpose but are much lighter, and more importantly because they develop faster than teeth. Birds considerably predate grasses (which are what grains are).

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Teeth can need work from physical trauma, too. Getting hit in the head while hunting or fighting or just hiking might cause a cracked tooth, which can be deadly in the absence of dental care. Or just while eating, sometimes a stray rock or bone fragment or shell might cause an issue.

      Lots of other species can regrow teeth in adulthood, even a handful of other mammals. All sorts of animals can have tooth problems in the wild, so I wouldn’t assume that prehistoric humans were exempt from that general danger.

      • psud@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Sure. All sorts of things would kill you, and a dental injury would be a crap way to die. The ancient stuff is from preserved hunter gatherer skeletons.

        We, fortunately, have excellent dental care available so people hardly ever die of a broken tooth, I know about my lack of cavities from a pair of several x-rays and a check up while replacing a filling from when I ate the common diet

      • watersnipje@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Those low life expectancies are typically due to high infant deaths. Once you are like 10 or so, the life expectancy is much higher, and more informative. The life expectancy at birth is in many cases a bit misleading.

        • HereIAm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s fair. It was just my understanding that one of the leading causes to death was that the teeth started to rot away. I clearly need to brush up on my human history a bit!

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    THE APPENDIX HAS ENTERED THE CHAT.

    Being able to make our own Vitamin C aside, the fact that a vestigial organ can randomly decide to fucking kill you is asinine from a design perspective. Its the equivalent to building a pool in the sims and removing the ladder for the first person who wanders inside.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah. It’s “big cats” and “great apes” I’m just hoping the name was made when great just meant big (I do know they named them before they knew we were in that picture)

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That’s cap as hell considering a saiyan without a tail can’t become a Great Ape or an SSJ4 for that matter.

          • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            Sorry, let me translate for the non-internet poison speaking audience.

            “Sir, you are mistaken in the idea that Great Apes do not have tails for in order to become a Great Ape one must be of the saiya-jin race and still possess a tail. Meaning a Great Ape without a tail would be difficult to believe, and additionally the Great Ape state is a pre-requisite for the Super Saiyan 4 transformation as well, which promiently features a tail. You see I am being humorous by conflating real life categories of animal species with references to Akira Toryiama’s hit series Dragon Ball”

            • psud@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Thanks mate I got the Saiyan part, I just couldn’t see what you were saying at the start because I couldn’t see you missed the “r” in crap :/

              • thevoidzero@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Cap is a genZ term. That’s cap = that’s a joke/lie/ something along that. I’m not fluent in the language.

        • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          I feel like if that happened with a human it would be a pretty minor thing to go up in there and smash the egg so you just shit out the shell and stuff. I don’t really see a reason it would have to be fatal, or even really all that big of a deal, if that’s just what human reproduction looks like.

          Now if we were using the cloaca in the same way we presently use the vagina, as a birth canal for developed offspring, that would be a different story, but ultimately not all that different from now.

    • zhengman777@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yikes. That’s why I get a little worried about the high velocity neck stuff that some chiropractors do.

    • JayObey711@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Or that sneesing / trying to hold back a sneeze can give you an aneurism. But I guess although it’s rare in animals it’s not exclusive to humans.