• atocci@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Wait what’s the deal with the horses? I want to feel good about myself today.

    Edit: Wow, those bastards have it rough.

    • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      186
      ·
      1 month ago

      Their genetics have sacrificed nearly every aspect of basic resiliency for maximum speed on the plains. Most of the work caring for horses is keeping them from accidentally killing themselves. Full disclosure: I worked as a stable hand as a child in exchange for riding lessons. Will never ever own a horse.

      • LennethAegis@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        107
        ·
        1 month ago

        To add on why broken legs are fatal: its because horses are so big, that even with a sling, they cannot support themselves well on 3 legs. And lying down is also not an option as their own weight will crush their internal organs if they stay down for too long.

        • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          59
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Oh, wow, I had always thought that shooting a horse with a broken leg was an act of brutal expedience, not mercy.

        • frosty99c@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 month ago

          Also, don’t they need to run to move food through their digestive tract? Or to force themselves to cough if they have something stuck in their lungs? I think there is some sort of dependency of basic functions that relies on the movement of their lungs/stomach going back and forth while running that they can’t easily do if they just stand in one place all day

        • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 month ago

          Also their blood gets pumped through their hooves, and to much weight on one hoof can impede blood flow through their body.

        • Eiri@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I thought horses not being able to lie down for long was just competition horses! It’s all of them?

          • LennethAegis@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s not just horses, all large mammals have this problem from lying down too long. Horses can and do lie down every day, but for short periods of time. It’s the extended lying down from illness or injury that kills them.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              28 days ago

              do humans count as large mammals? pretty sure we have at least very similar problems if we lie down for ages, hence why people who are bed bound have to be moved around regularly.

              • LennethAegis@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                28 days ago

                You mean bedsores, yeah its a pretty similar cause. The difference is that bedsores only cause damage to the skin from lack of blood flow caused by the extended pressure from lying down. While in horses, the extended pressure from lying down leads to poor blood flow in not just the skin, but the muscles and organs nearby too.

                And yes, you can turn horses over too, but it takes multiple people and is really dangerous to everyone involved, so its not an action to be taken lightly.

    • DarkGamer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      From an evolutionary standpoint we just have to survive long enough to reproduce, if we can’t eat past age of reproduction there’s no evolutionary pressure to change that.

      Thank goodness for modern dentistry.

      • Hawke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        64
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That’s completely untrue.

        Evolution applies to the entire lifespan — if we could “reproduce” but died in childbirth every time, our species would have gone extinct long ago.

        Parents and grandparents also contribute greatly to the success of a child long long after they’re born, helping to ensure it also survives to reproductive age.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          43
          ·
          1 month ago

          “grandparents”

          Life expectancy in 18th century France was in the 20s, grandparents are optional

          • PoopingCough@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            63
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t disagree with your overall point, but statistics like that are almost always heavily skewed because of high infant mortality rates

            • snooggums@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              ·
              1 month ago

              The mortality rate during childbirth was pretty high for women on top of the infant rate. Childbirth as a whole dragged the numbers down.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              28 days ago

              18th century france is also quite possibly the single worst place and point in time to use as a comparison, there’s a reason people beheaded monarchs.

          • loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            29
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            [Edit : It turns out people have said the same thing while I was looking for the right source to confirm my point, so I guess this comment’s a bit redundant now. Still leaving it in case someone’s interested]

            The number’s correct but…

            Child mortality The most significant difference between historical mortality rates and modern figures is that child and infant mortality was so high in pre-industrial times; before the introduction of vaccination, water treatment, and other medical knowledge or technologies, women would have around seven children throughout their lifetime, but around half of these would not make it to adulthood. Accurate, historical figures for infant mortality are difficult to ascertain, as it was so prevalent, it took place in the home, and was rarely recorded in censuses; however, figures from this source suggest that the rate was around 300 deaths per 1,000 live births in some years, meaning that almost one in three infants did not make it to their first birthday in certain periods. For those who survived to adolescence, they could expect to live into their forties or fifties on average.

            So reaching 50 wasn’t too rare for someone who had survived childhood, and given how people often started having children younger then, that was well enough to be grandparent. Doesn’t mean everyone would’ve gotten to known their grandparents, but it wouldn’t have been super rare either.

          • RedditRefugee69@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            A reminder that life expectancy in ancient history was so low not because people generally croaked by 40, but because of how many children died young.

            It’s an average, not a maximum. People regularly lived into their 70s and 80s hundreds of years ago.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              28 days ago

              From what i’ve read and heard about the subject, the life expectancy generally looked something like this back in the hunter-gatherer days:

              You were very likely to die as an infant, pretty likely to die before puberty, after that you were likely to make it to 40-50, and it wasn’t that rare to reach 70.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Generally sure. We’ve certainly evolved to want to be around for a while after reproduction though, for example human infants are completely worthless. That doesn’t mean we need to be top notch, but we do need to exist sufficiently to get children to even the most brutal, basic independence.

        Compare that to something that hatches then is already just adulting, like many reptiles.

        I think the keyword is precocial vs altricial

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          28 days ago

          Especially considering how reliant we humans are on knowledge, without the previous generation teaching us we’re pretty well doomed.

          Old people would have been highly valued just because they’re sitting on decades of knowledge and wisdom, in an age without permanent records of information grandma would have been the only source of information about the past, and would presumably spend most of their time just sharing that knowledge with everyone else.

    • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      They just didn’t evolve to consume so much sugar.

      Bro, eating oranges puts our tooth enamel in a weakened state. If we were designed, it was by an idiot.

        • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          It’s not the sugar, but the acid that our teeth can’t handle.

          The fact that healthy foods can’t be consumed without a risk of harm is not an intelligent design.

          I mean, even apples (i.e. “Garden of Eden”) can promote the growth of plaque!

            • flicker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              If an all-knowing creator didn’t want humans to eat fruit from a specific tree, he shouldn’t have grown that tree in the only garden he had humans in.

                • flicker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Oh, right. The obedience only matters if you have to make yourself do it. It doesn’t count if it’s natural and painless and costs you nothing. Can’t believe I forgot about that?

          • Hawke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Oranges don’t exist naturally, was the point I was making. Theyre a hybrid, derived at least partly from pomelo.

            • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              You are right, it’s just that in Spanish a “pomelo” is a grapefruit, and I was unaware of the whole rabbit hole that is the hybridwtion of the pomelo, mandarin, citrus and all that. I deleted my old comment because I was just confused.

              • Hawke@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                No worries, I don’t know all the details and looking more deeply, it looks to be more complicated than I was remembering too.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Actually a bigger contributor is underdeveloped jaws due to no longer requiring to chew from.a very young age for nutritional requirements.

    • kittehx@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Half our expected lifetime was our expected lifetime back when they evolved. Teeth are doing quite well, all things considered.

  • Mango@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The breathing and eating tubes gotta cross so you can blow with your mouth and choke on cock. Non-negotiable.

    • daltotron@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      You could still probably blow with your mouth if you didn’t have your lungs connected, I imagine it would involve a kind of burping type of action. I think the bigger problem would be that if your nostrils closed up, you wouldn’t be able to breathe, and probably also talking would be a lot harder if your vocal chords and mouth were separate from your main air sacs.

      I think the solution is probably just an easily opened and closed internal valve that separates the stomach and the lungs, rather than this bullshit we currently have with two separate valves that lead into both and open for one and then close for the other whenever it’s required. It’s still good to be able to close both when you want to, but you can already close your mouth on command, and another valve with the nose is a notable upgrade in that it keeps everyone from smelling bad smells they don’t wanna smell, and it also doesn’t take any more valves than we already have.

      There’s probably some way you could fix this all with enough surgical intervention, I bet…

  • over_clox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Its only a valve. Topologically speaking, the passage from the mouth to the anus only constitutes one hole.

    The passage of air into the lungs is not a hole however, that is a cavity. Same difference with the vagina, that’s not a hole, that’s a cavity.

          • accideath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 month ago

            Tbh, I was kinda hoping for someone with better biology knowledge than me to correct me. Thanks.

            • coffee_whatever@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Important note, if you take a straw that separates into two split straws (kinda in a “Y” shape) that from a topological point of view is two holes, because one is for one of these paths, and the other is an extruded hole on the side of the first path. In topology you can’t break or mend material, but you can pull, stretch, squeeze and move it all you want. So you can move one of the split straw “legs” to the bottom of the whole straw, getting a shape similar to a “V”, it would look pretty much like a pair of pants. And topologically speaking it would be exactly the same. So… One straight hole for your mouth all the way down to your anus. Another two are there for your nostrils, that’s 3 already. The rest are for your tear ducts, which have two holes on the edge of your eye, (so four in total) which merge and then connect to your nose.

              So a human, from a topological perspective, is just a seven holed doughnut. Also Vsauce made a great video about that, with pretty great animations.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I am well aware that people have three topological holes. Matter of fact, I proved that years ago.

          In this case, I only referred to one topological hole, from mouth to anus.

          I never mentioned the nose, nor was that part of the topic in question.

          • accideath@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            Nose is two. Your butt isn’t one. Or rather, your mouth and nostrils would be the entrance and your butt is the combined exit of those three holes. If you don’t count the nostrils, you only have one hole. A hole always goes through something, otherwise it’s just a cavity. And also, holes only count from one side. Your butt and mouth are the same hole, just from different ends.

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              Nose is only one hole, topologically speaking. You can run a string from one nostril to the other.

              One topological hole.

            • over_clox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              Nose is only one hole homie, runs from one nostril to the other. It takes the mouth to add a secondary orifilce. And it takes the anus to add a third orifice.

              Topology for ya.

              • accideath@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                Doesn’t matter which way you turn it, the result is the same. As you count it, your first hole is nostril to nostril. I count mouth to anus as hole one and then add the left and right nostrils as secondary and tertiary orifices. Having a nose ads two holes to the total count. If you had no nose, you‘d have one hole, if you only had a nose, you’d also only have one hole.

            • Match!!@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              oh! but then why is it three holes and not nostril-to-mouth as a hole and other-nostril-to-butt as another hole, or some other combination

              • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Quick illustration:

                Nostrils:
                ___________
                _________  |
                _________| |
                _________  |
                Mouth:   | |
                \________| |
                 ________  |
                /        | |
                         | |
                         | |
                         | |
                         | | 
                         | |
                Butthole:
                

                That is 3 holes in total because you can “connect” any opening with 3 different one’s.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Depends on the state of your esophagus, doesn’t it? If it’s closed (which it mostly is) then your mouth and nose holes go to your lung cavity. Your anus is also part of a cavity that goes through your intestines all the way up your throat and stops at your esophagus.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    THE APPENDIX HAS ENTERED THE CHAT.

    Being able to make our own Vitamin C aside, the fact that a vestigial organ can randomly decide to fucking kill you is asinine from a design perspective. Its the equivalent to building a pool in the sims and removing the ladder for the first person who wanders inside.

        • SolarMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          I feel like if that happened with a human it would be a pretty minor thing to go up in there and smash the egg so you just shit out the shell and stuff. I don’t really see a reason it would have to be fatal, or even really all that big of a deal, if that’s just what human reproduction looks like.

          Now if we were using the cloaca in the same way we presently use the vagina, as a birth canal for developed offspring, that would be a different story, but ultimately not all that different from now.

    • zhengman777@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yikes. That’s why I get a little worried about the high velocity neck stuff that some chiropractors do.

    • JayObey711@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Or that sneesing / trying to hold back a sneeze can give you an aneurism. But I guess although it’s rare in animals it’s not exclusive to humans.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    the lack of a highly clickable abstract and title that ignores the last names of many of the people involved leads me to believe this is a satire