Anna L. Abrante wrote:

>Yes for family support, and the other reasons to have a larger family we
>might live longer.

And those with larger families will have genes that eventually dominate.
That is what survival of the fittest is all about. There clearly are
advantages to a hunter/gatherer group to having the prior generation around
to help out. Remember we were tribe oriented, not solitary couples raising
kids.

>there is no purpose whatsoever in living to be 70,80,90,100. After a certain
>point we are baggage.

Exactly. That is why our life expectancy is only about that many years.

>certain foods were designed to help us get to reproduction faster (paleo
>eaters would say it was grains and milk, and they're probably right) but
>were NOT healthy foods to eat for longevity.  That the type of longevity
potential
>we have now is unprecedented in evolutionary history,

The longevity potential is due to our being able to conquer the
environment, being able to cure infectious diseases, and being able to fix
up people that were injured in accidents. There is no evidence that HGs had
any shorter life span than we now, if they were lucky enough to avoid these
problems.

> and the foods that
>were good to get us to reproduction faster are actually BAD for us
afterwards.
>This is collaborated by the fact that we get our periods earlier than ever in
>history,

That is due to the high grain diet. Totally unnatural to our systems.

>to be?" The only way to answer that, is to look
>at the longest living people on the planet....and this is my area of research
>now.

And as I've pointed out the data is so poor in these cultures that those
arguing for their pet cause can twist things to their advantage.

Don.