this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
949 points (98.6% liked)

Science Memes

11808 readers
170 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Yes also this diagram:

Gives you a clear sense of how quickly things are turning.

In a geological sense, all of humanity isn't even a heartbeat.

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I might not remember it exactly, but I've heard that about 9 out of 10 people of all our history haven't died yet. Which can be neatly misinterpreted as a surprisingly optimistic chance of not dying.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

haha yes, statistics is neat :)

Also, what would you do with infinite time?

[–] angrystego@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Probably the same as I do with finite time - stress myself about things I cannot influence. Or perhaps I'd finally have time to learn not to do that - it's a task for several lifetimes, I'm afraid :)

[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 102 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah only 2 generations ago, LGBT people were considered mentally ill. 4 generations ago women were considered unfit to vote. 8 generations ago about half the US though it was OK to own slaves. It takes a while for ideas to die out. That's why US elections turn out the way they do.

[–] flora_explora@beehaw.org 36 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Humanity isn't progressing uniformly forward like this. Lgbtqia+ people were considered normal part of society by various cultures. Also Magnus Hirschfeld was an advocate for lgbtqia+ people a hundred years ago. Slavery has been transformed into modern slavery because the western world has found other, more concealed ways to force people into labor. Ideas may die out, but they will pop into people's head again and again.

[–] araneae@beehaw.org 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

And yet discussing progress in this manner can be a confort. All that you said was true... But what the person you replied said was also true. Two generations since fertilizer or two generations since we locked in Malthusian anarchy[please note I do not espouse Malthusianism]. Three generations since the worst war known to man and three generations that did not experience that kind of war. Glass half full, glass half empty. It's correct to question the myth of unstoppable progress thru which you can just kick your feet up and relax. But equally is it important to keep perspective remember that, yeah, eight generations ago chattel slavery was a bonafide institution and four generations women were unfranchised. Things get better and they get worse. We make progress and it is wiped away. We still keep trying.

[–] Shawdow194@fedia.io 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Two steps forward. One step back

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

Wonder how long it'll take before we get to step forward again. As far as I'm seeing, we're in for a long ride back. Not just for 4 years.

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

The American people are pretty fickle. It won't take long for them to become unhappy with the Republican party. Of course once that happens and you and I are celebrating "Yay! We got rid of the fascists!" they'll be going "Hmm... These other guys are pretty uninspiring. Maybe we should try fascism again."

* There's a big asterisk here that this is all predicted on elections continuing unabated. Which is not a given.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sergio@slrpnk.net 9 points 1 week ago

This has happened before. Even after Abu Ghraib Bush Jr won re-election. Even after Iran-Contra the Republicans won re-election.

But the fact is that they do not have the answers. They can only take things for themselves, and hope that people give up.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 83 points 1 week ago (3 children)

The lengths Americans will go to in order not to use the metric system is insane.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I am interested in learning about this metric time.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Oh?

"450 mothers ago" is roughly 363,500 megaseconds ago.

To be fair, measuring that in moms seems more intuitive.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

metric time actually was a thing, and it sucked so nobody used it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dnick@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

They were discussing converting the AU to 1 'your mom' as a better frame of reference, but France wouldn't sign on

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 70 points 1 week ago (4 children)

That’s not a well-founded assumption. The average age of first birth was only 21 as recently as 1970. Go back a few hundred years and it’s way younger than that. Many women throughout history became mothers as soon as they were able (right after the onset of puberty). Many cultures had rites of passage into adulthood for boys and girls of that age. There was no such thing as adolescence.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 52 points 1 week ago (18 children)

In Western Europe at least back to the early medieval period it was common for anyone who wasn’t nobility to have their first child around 22. The younger you are the more likely you’re going to have serious (fatal, back then) complications. It was the nobility that was marrying off barely pubescent kids.

[–] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 31 points 1 week ago

It was the nobility that was marrying off barely pubescent kids.

Same as it ever was.

[–] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago

Could we say (for no other reason than I'm stoned and it sounds good) the rough average mother-age is 18-ish? Then there would be roughly ~110 mothers since Jesus cheated and respawned for our sins.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Acamon@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As the other commentator says, medieval Europe was mostly early twenties. Studies of stone age remains suggest a first birth age average of 19.5 and contemporary hunter gather societies have a comparable average. Sexual activity generally begins earlier, during adolescence, but the most "reproductively successful" age for beginning childbearing has been shown to be around 18-19. Also, this age at first birth isnt "Average age of a child's mother" as many women would have multiple kids over their life, so the average sibling would have a much older mother at birth than the firstborn.

Its important to remember that puberty has shifted massively since industrialisation, "menarche age has receded from 16.5 years in 1880 to the current 12.5 years in western societies". So the post-puberty fecundity peak, that use to happen 17-19, when women are fully grown enough to minimise birth complications, now happens at a disressingly young 13-15. Not only is this a big social yuck for most western societies, but it's reproductively unideal, because of the complications linked to childbirth at that age.

[–] Fritee@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Huh, that’s interesting. Do we know why the menarche age has receded?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (3 children)

First births yes, but what about average age? Our ancestors may have been second born, third born, eighth born etc

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 45 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is framed like 80 generations is a small number, but that's huge. Culture and civilization moves so quickly that even 3 generations ago life is barely recognisable. I can't even imagine what life was like 40 generations ago.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Many people don't realize that the amount of change our culture goes through in a lifetime is unfathomable historically. Before the 1800s it took a good decade for news to truly travel around to everyone in a region, and that was considered timely if it happened at all. Farming, hunting, homemaking, war, stayed exactly the same for dozens of years at a time and changes were usually made abruptly due to conflict before stagnating again.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] samus12345@lemm.ee 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

25 is too old for most mothers the farther back you go.

[–] silasmariner@programming.dev 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Kilamaos@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

So from your article, it seems to say the opposite

The female average age of conception is 23.2, AND this includes a recent rise, so it would be even lower than that when considering older times

Also, it's unclear if the average also accounts for the fact that there is are significantly more child being given birth to in the very recent past, which would skew the number way up

[–] RedAggroBest@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Every time I see people argue this I always wanna ask, are you considering that people don't stop having kids after 1 or 2? I'd wager that most women had the majority of their kids around that 23ish mark when you include that lady who had 10 kids from 15 to 35

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not even that far back, modern medicine is wonderful

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Depending on the religion, yes. Otherwise it‘s 12 years per mother, 14 if you’re late.

That's also assuming you're the first born of the first born of the first born, and so on. And the further back you go, the more individual kids the average mother is likely to have. After all, you had to have like 12 kids just so 3 of them would make it past 9.

So your greatx12 grandmother might've started having kids at 15, but she still might not have had your ancestor till years later.

[–] fibojoly@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago

You would have a lot more death during pregnancy / childbirth though.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I knew my great-grandmother, few people do. My great-great-grandmother is an ancient picture on the wall of my dead grandmother's house, from a time when photography was new, a scant few years past daguerreotypes.

4 mothers back is all I can summon, only remember 3.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

4 mothers back is all I can summon,

What's the spell?

[–] _stranger_@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago

"I'm feeling hungry and mildly pregnant"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dariusj18@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

Whoops, I'm suddenly bleeding

[–] Deebster@infosec.pub 20 points 1 week ago

I was thinking that it's now 81 mothers ago, but then I got distracted by the fact that there was no year 0AD and now I'm thinking that roughly 80 is good enough.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

And if everyone of your ancestors was unique (so no inbreeding) 80 mothers ago there would had to be 2^80^ = more than 1.2 septillion people on the planet

[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And if your grandmother had wheels she would be a bicycle.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago

Let's push it one step further and frame history since agriculture, 9500 years ago, against the upper limit of a human lifetime now, about 100 years. This would mean recorded times started only less than 100 human lifespans ago. Bleh

[–] pseudo@jlai.lu 9 points 1 week ago

Do we have a community for genealogy?

load more comments
view more: next ›