On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:32:31 -0500, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

snip
> I see no reason to suppose that paleolithic people were impervious to
> parasites and infections.

I see a reason. They had bigger brain cases than us, IMHO it is likely
that they used the resultant intellignce to avoid afflictions. Also at
least some of the parasites might be symbiotes.
As for infection, I read that a cut can heal without scarring if it is
debrided and kept clean, which to me means free of dirt/poison. Maybe they
knew.



  Other wild species are susceptible to them.

Other wild species don't think like us.


> In addition, death by trauma, exposure, and predation would have had
> some effect on life expectancy.

We ARE the predators. We are supposed to have been the reason for
extinction of sabre-tooth tiger, cave bear etc. Notice also the absence of
grizzly bears in most of North America. Always the same; if a predator
annoys us, we kill it. As for trauma and exposure, the only model I know
of is aboriginal Americans, and they seems to have coped well, so those
were not problems.


snip
>>
>>
>>
> That's one issue.  The other is whether survival into old age is itself
> something for which our species has little evolutionary preparation.  If
> that is so (I'm not convinced of it, but I don't think it has been
> refuted either) then we have to consider the possibility that the
> premise that a "natural" diet is the best path to longevity is just
> wrong.  Longevity may be as unnatural as corn.  Humans may be optimized
> for relatively short but vigorous lives.
>
> It would be nice if we had data on what percentage of various
> paleolithic populations lived past 40, past 50, etc.  Even more relevant
> would be the probabilities of living to a given age, given that one has
> already survived to a given age.  I would say, for example, that in most
> human societies, the probability of living to 60 is much greater once
> you've made it to 20, and the correlation is not linear.  But this is
> just conjecture....
>


Asssuming a perfect diet, would the reamains (bones) show signs of aging?
I don't know, but suspect they would not, assuming the normal replacement
of cells is perfectly supported.
All of the estimates of age at death assume that their bones show similar
marks compared to ours. If they were wise enough to avoid stressors maybe
there would be no such marks, and the bones of a 1,000 year-old would look
like those of a modern 25-year-old.

How about this postulate: Aging, and the signs thereof, is unnatural. It
is caused by planetary changes such that the
air/water/food/sunlight/social conditions are not adequate to support
perfect health.