Humans had extremely long lifespan.

Titus_Pullo

Banned
What if humans had evolved to have an extremely long lifespan of over 200 years? How would history be different?
In what way could the evolutionary process have changed to give humans a long life expectancy?
 
while it'll be hard to answer since we don't quite know how long an average race lives, I'd suscept that we'd never evolve to be as technologically advanced as we are now since there would be fewer generations (longer ages would mean longer between generations most likely)
 
I'm guessing you want the period of human reproductive viability to last as long as it is normally? Because if not, that could result in all sorts of weird demographic side effects.
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
I'm guessing you want the period of human reproductive viability to last as long as it is normally? Because if not, that could result in all sorts of weird demographic side effects.

Well. No maintaining the present repoductive viability would put such an added pressure on the environment. How would you change it to give humans longer lifespans but at the same time giving them a low birthrate.

while it'll be hard to answer since we don't quite know how long an average race lives,

By race do you mean species?
 
Some creationists believe there used to be some canopy of water in the atmosphere, which make for optimal living conditions on Earth, allowing dinosaurs and longer lived humans to exist. According to the Bible account, these humans were living up to 900 years, and fathering sons relatively 'early', decades before their 100th birthday.

Then again, later on Abraham lived 100-and-something, but was already considered proper old in his 90s, so I'm guessing his 100+ was somewhat decrepit, despite him being able to father children at that age.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
 
Some creationists believe there used to be some canopy of water in the atmosphere, which make for optimal living conditions on Earth, allowing dinosaurs and longer lived humans to exist. According to the Bible account, these humans were living up to 900 years, and fathering sons relatively 'early', decades before their 100th birthday.

Then again, later on Abraham lived 100-and-something, but was already considered proper old in his 90s, so I'm guessing his 100+ was somewhat decrepit, despite him being able to father children at that age.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
Alternatively, because the Hebrews used a lunar calendar rather than a solar one and the yearly cycle (which isn't as obvious in the Middle East as it is in northern Europe, anyway) doesn't matter as much to pastoral people as it does to settled agriculturalists, and apparently the modern Hebrew word for 'year' developed from an older one that just meant 'period of time', it's been suggested that the lifespans quote for "pre-diluvian" people in Genesis might actually be in months rather than years: For example, Methusaleh living 900 months would be a lifespan of 75 years which would still have been a 'respectable' length in ancient times...


Anyway: Longer life => more to lose => fewer & less bloody wars?
 
Well. No maintaining the present repoductive viability would put such an added pressure on the environment. How would you change it to give humans longer lifespans but at the same time giving them a low birthrate.
Note, this assumes that if humans live 200 years, they are 'vigorous' for much of that time.

Say this change comes about because humans are just physically stronger. Strong enough to not wear out for 180 years or so. That means you will have less infant mortality since more kids will be resistant to diseases and infections. If you have less infant mortality and more of your kids make it to live long lives, you will have less kids. Having lots of kids was an insurance policy to ensure economic viability because half of them died. Instead because more live you have pressure to have less kids since you can't provide them all with economic viability. There are isolated differences (a natalist ideology or something) but in general it would probably balance out.
 
Alternatively, because the Hebrews used a lunar calendar rather than a solar one and the yearly cycle (which isn't as obvious in the Middle East as it is in northern Europe, anyway) doesn't matter as much to pastoral people as it does to settled agriculturalists, and apparently the modern Hebrew word for 'year' developed from an older one that just meant 'period of time', it's been suggested that the lifespans quote for "pre-diluvian" people in Genesis might actually be in months rather than years: For example, Methusaleh living 900 months would be a lifespan of 75 years which would still have been a 'respectable' length in ancient times...
Except, to perpetuate the digression, that would mean Enoch begat a son at age 5. Almost completely impossible...
 
If both men and women remain capable until their 100's with the same fertility the world will be much bloodier. Populations will grow faster, exhaust the local food supply (before large scale agriculture) and violently expand into the neighboring regions. Slave labor will be much cheaper and more widespread with the larger populations.

Alternately, if you keep the birthrate constant to OTL I think that the biggest change will be a dramatic increase in the rate of technological progress. The productive life of a human will be roughly doubled, and the average knowledge and experience of society as a whole will increase.
 
Top