I see three possible avenues for this. 1. We get more sugar than them and sugar is worse than we realize. 2. They had less liberalism, and living with community and purpose was better enough to keep them going. 3. They died more and if anything was gonna make them sick they wouldn't have survived till old age so the survivorship bias is stronger.

So we just need to find a way to isolate those variables and do a regression for the data. Yeah?

[–] KobaCumTribute@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They died more and if anything was gonna make them sick they wouldn't have survived till old age so the survivorship bias is stronger.

It's sort of this, but also the fact that risk factors are probabilistic and there are, to put it bluntly, a very large number of people. Some might theoretically have a small mutation that makes their system more robust in some indefinable way, but mostly it's just a matter of there being so many people that some of them are going to win all the "risk of imminent death" dice rolls for a very long time.

[–] Alisu@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The correct steps to live until you are 90 are: eat fried food, drink sugarcane syrup and never go to the doctor. The most important part is never ever seeing a doctor, if they don't examine you, you'll never get sick

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 days ago

you forgot getting blackout drunk every other day with the lads.

load more comments (1 replies)