tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post4332897949822962028..comments2023-08-16T02:59:07.053-07:00Comments on Writer's Daily Grind: Robert Sawyer's essay on NeandertalsAnne Gilberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-2774214341551942752008-09-05T22:53:00.000-07:002008-09-05T22:53:00.000-07:00Bee:anyWell, I've seen articles that purport to ma...Bee:anyWell, I've seen articles that purport to make this claim. It's true enough that the "average" Neandertal had fairly short lifetimes, but if you look at the "average" lifespan of people living in, say Western Europe around 1300 or so, that wasn't any longer than that of Neandertals. For that matter, neither was the "average" lifespan of most people in the American colonies at the time of the American Revolution, if it comes to that. And we're talking "modern" humans here. "Modern" humans in Paleolithic times had a slight reproductive advantage all right; usually organisms that are somewhat adapted to harsher climates, have fewer offspring. If there is something that ameliorates conditions so that there is a better food supply, even these creatures may have more offspring. Until recently, that has been one of the salient features of the polar bears around Churchill, Manitoba. Until climate changes there and elsewhere interfered with thier food supplies, it was not unusual for some mother bears to have tree cubs in Churchill, Manitoba, a situation which is highly unusual in other parts of "polar bear country" and even more unusual now, I suppose. In any case, I suspect Neandertals had something of the same pattern, whereas "moderns" already had a larger population because they had more reliable food supplies. IOW, I think population size differences are the key here, not any particular other "advantage"; many of these seem more apparent than real to me.<BR/>Anne GAnne Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-24248173149403322782008-09-03T09:14:00.000-07:002008-09-03T09:14:00.000-07:00Hi, AnneYou've likely already come across the arti...Hi, Anne<BR/><BR/>You've likely already come across the article (I may have traced it from here) and I'm not sure where I read it (will try to find it later), but there is a theory about Neandertals extinction which doesn't require human intervention at all. Both humans and Neandertals were at one time reduced to very small numbers - this is certainly thought to be true of humans, that there were less than a thousand at one point. <BR/><BR/>Humans had a lifespan and reproductive advantage. Neandertal slightly shorter lifespans meant that a Neandertal woman on average rarely had sufficient time to bear and raise more than one or two children in her lifetime, when all the usual factors for average fertility and child mortality are considered. If, say, half the population is not able to reproduce itself, as in, for every adult male and female, only half are replacing themselves, attrition leads to extinctions. It may be they were incapable of having enough children to offset that point at which they were a very small population, while humans were able to to breed more prolifically.<BR/><BR/>BeeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com