Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

muskytortoise t1_iv0oxp2 wrote

While you are absolutely right to point it out I didn't mean they were directly competing with humans but rather pointing out that constant breeding much above replacement rate would allow them to outcompete other groups. Since tendencies describe averages, if they had more than 6 children at the typical 50% mortality rate it would cause the population to grow fairly fast. Of course that comment probably stemmed from greatly overblown idea of infant mortality that person has.

2

alderhill t1_iv0qkir wrote

OK cool, yea, I got that point, just was a bit confused about the context of homo erectus. I agree, though. It seems biologically, primates just generally aren't super-breeders.

IIRC, earlier homonids probably came to breeding age quicker than we do (under depending on nutrition, etc)., so a Homo erectus female of 10 years may have already been in prime mothering age. A child every 2-3 years or so would mean that by age 30, she'd possibly be a grandmother and done with most child rearing.

I do agree as well that mortality rates are on average overblown... once they pass the first two or so tough years, their odds are much improved

1