If by “modern” you mean anything developed in the last 10,000 years, then no. We know humans lived to roughly the same maximum ages back then as today.
If you extend that to 100,000 years, then…maybe? It’s hard to say but it’s plausible at least.
The fossil record is not so detailed. It’s hard to estimate the age of fossils, and it’s hard to draw far-reaching conclusions from the limited number of well-preserved fossils that have been discovered. Most research doesn’t say anything more than “adult” or “child”.
There are some techniques used to estimate more precise ages, and the estimates of the age at the time of death for fossils from the Upper Paleolithic period (12k-50k years ago) or older is rather young.
The Smithsonian Institution has this to say about “Nandy”, a Neanderthal fossil from around 40,000 years ago:
scientists estimate he lived until 35–45 years of age. He would have been considered old to another Neandertal, and he would probably not have been able to survive without the care of his social group.
It’s similar for early Homo Sapiens fossils. At the Dolní Věstonice site, there was a ceremonially buried woman who’s estimated to be in her 40s, from about 30,000 years ago. She is thought to be one of the elders.
I’m not aware of any others that are generally believed to have been much older than that. That doesn’t mean that humans couldn’t or didn’t survive for longer, but it was surely more rare. That doesn’t really support wild claims of what’s “hardcoded” or what a “natural” lifespan is. There were certainly more things that could kill you 50,000 years ago than there are today, and most of them have nothing to do with DNA and have little bearing on the maximum lifespan.
The article is written very strangely, to the point where I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to say. They keep referring to the “natural” lifespan but never explain what exactly they mean by that, then they slide right into talking about “maximum” lifespan.
If you ignore every time they say “maximum” and assume by “natural” they mean “general life expectancy of an adult human”, then it seems fair enough. But statements like “Neanderthals and Denisovans…had a maximum lifespan of 37.8 years” are utter bullshit. I honestly think they were trying to say something completely different, but then decided “maximum” sounded cooler. Probably because of the X.
If by “modern” you mean anything developed in the last 10,000 years, then no. We know humans lived to roughly the same maximum ages back then as today.
If you extend that to 100,000 years, then…maybe? It’s hard to say but it’s plausible at least.
The fossil record is not so detailed. It’s hard to estimate the age of fossils, and it’s hard to draw far-reaching conclusions from the limited number of well-preserved fossils that have been discovered. Most research doesn’t say anything more than “adult” or “child”.
There are some techniques used to estimate more precise ages, and the estimates of the age at the time of death for fossils from the Upper Paleolithic period (12k-50k years ago) or older is rather young.
The Smithsonian Institution has this to say about “Nandy”, a Neanderthal fossil from around 40,000 years ago:
It’s similar for early Homo Sapiens fossils. At the Dolní Věstonice site, there was a ceremonially buried woman who’s estimated to be in her 40s, from about 30,000 years ago. She is thought to be one of the elders.
I’m not aware of any others that are generally believed to have been much older than that. That doesn’t mean that humans couldn’t or didn’t survive for longer, but it was surely more rare. That doesn’t really support wild claims of what’s “hardcoded” or what a “natural” lifespan is. There were certainly more things that could kill you 50,000 years ago than there are today, and most of them have nothing to do with DNA and have little bearing on the maximum lifespan.
The article is written very strangely, to the point where I honestly don’t know what they’re trying to say. They keep referring to the “natural” lifespan but never explain what exactly they mean by that, then they slide right into talking about “maximum” lifespan.
If you ignore every time they say “maximum” and assume by “natural” they mean “general life expectancy of an adult human”, then it seems fair enough. But statements like “Neanderthals and Denisovans…had a maximum lifespan of 37.8 years” are utter bullshit. I honestly think they were trying to say something completely different, but then decided “maximum” sounded cooler. Probably because of the X.