- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Fits very well. Completely wrong, but definitely something that one could come up with in the shower.
Not completely wrong at all, even if you disagree with the generation length (which is an average after all) the maths is correct. The 0AD thing isn’t, but you can’t have everything.
All those hundreds of mothers and the bloodline ends with my ugly face. My ancestors must be rolling in their graves.
the bloodline ends with my ugly face
Highly unlikely, unless you’re fixated on the specific mother/father combo. You won’t be the first person who failed to reproduce with a shared set of ancestors. Just support your community and make the lives of your procreating peers easier. That’s all any ancestor can ask of you.
Good point - I was thinking only of my immediate family.
Infinite energy! Why do we even need oil?? Just hook a few jumper cables up to your ancestors graves.
But wouldn’t we have to factor in like… just 5 monthers ago life expectency was so low that teenage mothers was the norm.
Teenage motherhood for the first child, sure. But women can continue having children into their 40s without significant difficulty. No guarantee that the firstborn will be the one who thrives relative to younger siblings particularly if the mother is an inexperienced or impoverished mom as a teenager.
So you really need to look at the median motherhood age, not the first opportunity of pregnancy.
Indeed, and there was high infant mortality when teenage motherhood was the norm as well.
I’ve always heard 5 was the average in a 100 year span. But still.
God damn… pretty sure humans can’t even successfully have children at 5,
Lmao, pretty sure they meant 5 mothers per 100 years is the norm across recorded history
0 AD
Good game
Me thinks that’s the point where time freezes.
