Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

I wonder why the human body is so badly designed?

115 replies

LJ17xx · 10/04/2018 20:56

However the human race came about, why are we so unprepared for life? Our bodies aren't equipped. So many illnesses, mental health disorders, too many ways to die!

OP posts:
Chrys2017 · 11/04/2018 13:01

The "poor design" of our bodies for childbirth hasn't prevented the world from becoming over-populated, though, has it? So perhaps it's not such a poor design after all.

Johnnycomelately1 · 11/04/2018 13:06

We're the world's most successful species so I'm not sure you really have an argument- sorry.

However, it's interesting in that we are the only species that has been able to radically shape our environment and thereby fuck ourselves over with things like cancer, obesity etc. However, that same environment shaping has given us many more advantages than it has disadvantages.

PerfectlyDone · 11/04/2018 13:09

No, I don't think that narrow pelvises/big fetal heads ever had much to do with controlling population growth.
Good nutrition, sanitation, vaccinations - these kind of things have led to exploding populations.

V good post by Anatidae - evolution/biology does not 'care'. It just 'does', according to environmental pressures and over a very loooooooong period of time (many generations, which is longer for humans than for bacteria Grin).

Eye sight - yes, there is a connection between lots and early reading/screen time and short sightedness, just as traditionally sailors have a higher proportion of far sighted people - all that scanning of far horizons....

PistFump · 11/04/2018 13:13

....it's still evolving.

Anatidae · 11/04/2018 13:31

Isn't there some research that being outside a lot prevents short sightedness?

Yes. Exposure to the bluer (I think) end of the daylight spectrum seems to be essential for the correct growth of the eyeball.

Bettertobehealthy · 11/04/2018 19:33

The reason we have more illness than would be expected. is as follows:

We are Great Apes, in other words , we are primates, our mammalian line evolved in Africa. That evolution took many millions of years , we adapted to the environment in Africa. When an environmental change occurs , then the organism either adapts to become better suited to that new environment , or it goes extinct , as generally it cannot compete for the resources within that environment.

     We  , as a species , have  changed our environment quite dramatically,   in the last few thousand years.     At a pace that far outstrips our ability to fully evolve adaptations. In other words we are still mostly suited to running around naked on the plains of East Africa.    I say mostly suited , because there is one  at least adaptation that has ocurred  within the last 10,000 years which would hinder our survivability.  That is white skin.   The reason we evolved white skin was because our environment changed , such that in Northern Europe ,  at lattitudes above say 40 degrees N ,   UVB in sunlight progressively diminishes , reducing the manufature of a vital hormone.  That is vitamin D , when processed by the body , it becomes the hormone form. Lack of it  results in many diseases.  In the UK,  at our latitude of 50 degrees , we cannot make Vitamin D in the skin  for 6 months of the year , mid_Oct  to  mid-April.       On the plains of East Africa , we can make it every day, because sunlight is much stronger, and contains  UVB radiation every day. (It's just a matter of physics ..! )

          Luckily , we can obtain some vitamin D ,  from food ,  in that winter period. Unluckily , it is not nearly enough.    Only people like Inuit , etc, who are eating fish every day get a reasonable amount.  You can of course take supplements ,   to help with the lack.  

Scientific advances over the last 50 years ,   and  more specifically over the last 20 years gives us a better understanding of Vit D physiology.    We now know that every cell in your body ( almost ) has a receptor , we now know that it is not just useful for bone health,  about  2000  of you your genes out of a total of about 23,000 have vitamin D response elements. i.e Vit D hormone form either up regulates or down regulates those genes  in conjuction with other signalling elements within the body. 

  Now ,    when exposed to  East African sun, modern humans , and our forefathers , have blood levels of around 120 - 140   of Vitamin D.    In this country , we have levels commonly  1/2  to 1/3  of that.  i.e. 30 - 70.    There are consequences.    Most of us don't reach the age of 85, in rude health.  We should really. With a natural variation of plus or minus 5 years. . .  ( obviously that is a statistical view, - some may suffer accident, disease, genetic variability etc etc. some are outliers etc.  )

That would be our expected lifespan , if well nourished by all required nutrients. Vitamin D is a micro nutrient, there are other nutrients which we are low in.
Modern farming and food habits mean that many people are low in magnesium and probably quite a few others. Modern science does not yet have all the answers. We have however found out quite a lot concerning Vitamin D. It is one of the factors contributing to many major western diseases. Have a look here , for a good idea , many research papers etc etc. vitamindwiki.com/VitaminDWiki

          Maybe this will prompt some people to check their Vitamin D level,    I hope so.     If you are in the UK ,  it will almost certainly  be well below your forefathers ancestral level of  120 -140.       That is why when many people go to the doctors , they will say .... "We are all low."      

  I have posted quite a bit here on mumsnet about  Vitamin D,    search my username , if you seek more info .  

 best of  luck. 

BTBH.

PS. you can get a test posted to you from this NHS lab . www.vitamindtest.org.uk

.

Anatidae · 11/04/2018 19:49

Do we have more illness than would be expected? I’m not sure we do actually. We swim in a sea of pathogens - we are exposed to viruses, bacteria and fungi daily. We live in crowded dense settings which allow reservoirs of disease to maintain. Measles for example requires a critical population size of it will fizzle out. There aren’t any other mammals living in mega cities of ten million plus with poor sanitation for example.
We have jet travel that allows flu and SARS and whatever else to cross the globe in a day. That means that viruses like zika have been transferred from populations where they were endemic and people had some resistance / got it in childhood to totally naive populations, where it rips through.

We have transport networks that let extremely virulent diseases trace far further than they would naturally. Ebola for example has previously fizzled out because it kills so quickly - it’s actually a very poor pathogen in that way. It kills too fast to be effective. Over time it will likely change to be less virulent and this spread further.
We are also encroaching in previously untouched habitats and in the process being exposed to novel pathogens we’ve never seen before - things like hendra virus. So we have pathogens that have been evolving with us in a kind of arms race from the very beginning and things that we encounter as new. We have a big disease burden because of how we live.

Vitamin D is certainly important - the majority of the British population are deficient and need supplementation.

peacheachpearplum · 11/04/2018 20:51

Certainly when tracing my family tree I've found it very unusual for my ancestors to die before 60 odd and many were 70, 80 and even 90. And I've got back to 1540 on multiple branches. We weren't well off either! But there was high infant mortality so overall the average life expectancy of my family was lower in the past even if those who survived to breed lived reasonable lengths of time.

Thanks Sam, that is exactly what I was thinking. So is it a fallacy that we are all living longer if we take out infant mortality? I read so often that people used to just get a pension for 3 or 4 years when 3 of my grand parents, born in first years of 20th century, lived until late 70s or early 80s, my great grandparents were similar apart from the one who was murdered. They all had a baby or babies that died in infancy.

Believeitornot · 11/04/2018 20:54

Maybe our lifestyle is the issue.

Most of us working inside, in shitty offices, many of us underpaid, over stressed. We give birth in inappropriate circumstances and we don’t get enough exercise or get outside and spend too much time pissing about online instead of getting outside and living.

Maybe that’s the problem.

Believeitornot · 11/04/2018 20:56

Thank you @Bettertobehealthy my dd was tested and had low vitamin d so I make sure she has supplements. We don’t get out enough in the winter - my dcs look and seem more healthy in the summer when they’re outside all the time!

I really believe our environment is just not suited to what human should need.

Sty90 · 11/04/2018 20:58

I think the human body is perfectly designed. However modern life is not what it’s designed for. We are animals, built to survive in the wild.

It’s like buying a BMW and using it for farm work

DameSylvieKrin · 11/04/2018 21:00

Cancer is the price we pay for growth. Think about how many cell divisions take place in your body each day, and how vanishingly few of them lead to cancer.
Problems with childbirth are caused by our massive heads and are the tradeoff for our immense brain size.
We are living what are among the longest, healthiest and most privileged lives in the history of humanity, it’s a shame not to enjoy it.

HCPinhiding · 11/04/2018 21:01

I think the human body is amazing thing. It has some flaws - mine especially, but overall they're brilliant and we absolutely take them for granted.

Skiiltan · 11/04/2018 21:09

There is no evolutionary advantage in being able to survive for a prolonged period beyond optimal child-producing age, or in individuals with lower levels of biological fitness surviving long enough to produce children. The view that our bodies seem ill-equipped for dealing with challenges to health results from our cultural belief that all lives are worthwhile, rather than the bilogical quality of "design" or evolutionary fitness.

There are some very clear "design flaws". For example, the blood vessels supplying your heart muscle get squeezed shut when the muscle contracts. So the harder your heart has to work (i.e. beating faster and more forcefully to supply more oxygenated blood to your muscles during exertion), the less able it is to receive the oxygenated blood it needs for itself. But this only really becomes a signficant problem if something else is causing your coronary vessels to be narrowed the rest of the time, too: most commonly atherosclerosis due to deposition of LDL cholesterol and endothelial damage from smoking. Over the course of the millions of years in which we have evolved, there has only been a pressure from excessive fat consumption and deliberate inhalation of smoke over the past few hundred. So there would be no way in which natural selection could yet have started to produce people less susceptible to heart disease.

Another example would be that we have no way of deaing with excess iron. The human kidney can't excrete iron because there would never have been any circumstances under which it would need to until someone invented ferrous sulfate tablets, except in a vanishingly small number of individuals with access to unlimited supplies of uncontaminated red meat.

peacheachpearplum · 11/04/2018 21:21

An Orthopaedic Surgeon told me knees were badly designed, particularly women's knees. He said the socket part that the thigh bone sits in isn't deep enough and it is made worse when women's hips widen at puberty so the thigh bone isn't going straight into the socket. Hope that makes sense.

peacheachpearplum · 11/04/2018 21:26

I think we need a third set of teeth, baby teeth don't last long and we start getting our permanent teeth when we are only 7 or 8, they might have to last 80 years. I think a new set at 30 would be useful.

I'm mid 60s and have all my teeth, except wisdom teeth than I never got in the first place, I live in fear of dentures.

Johnnycomelately1 · 12/04/2018 00:08

re life expectancy, the idea that we all died of "old age" at 40 is a myth and infant mortality/ maternal mortality played a large part. People died of routine infections and diseases now eliminated or reduced through vaccination. It's probably more accurate to say that over time life expectancy in a given country has become far less variable, which has brought the average up.

Remember also that life expectancy in developing countries was relatively low until the recent past, and we have data from the UK which shows that life expectancy beyond pensionable age has increased enough to become a major issue (working: pension ratio).

Tansie1 · 12/04/2018 00:16

Great OP.

My vote for 'fail' is the human lumbar spine, your lower back. That hasn't yet evolved efficiently for walking upright! Which is why low back pain is such an issue.

ijustwannadance · 12/04/2018 01:15

The issue we have us that we can no longer evolve fast enough to keep up with our changing environment. Changes that are ironically caused by us.

sashh · 12/04/2018 07:26

We have however found out quite a lot concerning Vitamin D. It is one of the factors contributing to many major western diseases

Yes do get it checked, I have Scottish and Irish ancestors who have given me skin that burns in minutes.

When my vitamin D was checked it was in single figures, 7 or 9 I think.

Anatidae · 12/04/2018 07:43

So is it a fallacy that we are all living longer if we take out infant mortality?

Yes and no. Our ‘potential’ lifespan hasn’t changed - at all points in human history there will have been a very few people who lived to great age. We’ve not changed that.
What’s changed is two things: firstly the drop in infant mortality which drags the average down a lot, and secondly the number of people living to older ages. Which is due to medicine, hygiene, vaccinations etc.

So there will always have been people living to a great age, it’s just nowvthete are more of them and fewer dying in infancy, and that skews the average. The upper limit hasn’t changed and won’t unless we have some serious scientific breakthroughs

Bring me my android body and CityHiveMind...

Anatidae · 12/04/2018 07:47

The teeth thing is interesting - we should hopefully be able to grow new teeth from implanted tooth buds within the next decade or so.
The reason we don’t seems to be to do with our precision bite. Our bite is exact and precise and that seems to have been very important for some reason in our history. If we lost and replaced teeth through adulthood then the precision of the bite would be lost.

It would be great to get another set in ourforties I agree (mine are damaged from two HG pregnancies...)

Sacroiliac joints can fuck off as well.

PerfectlyDone · 12/04/2018 09:38

Bettertobehealthy, while I always enjoy your posts about Vitamin D (and now doubt as a population we don't get enough, certainly not in the winter) I think survival as a species and as individuals does not hinge on one single issue such as Vit D levels. That is far too simplistic an explanation for very complex issues.

And yeah, I want a new set of teeth every 20 to 30 years - if sharks can keep growing new teeth, why not us?! Grin

Sacroiliac joints (bastards!) remain better suited to walking on all fours....

Justanotherzombie · 12/04/2018 09:40

The human body is perfect. If people could stop abusing it and using it how it was never intended all would be fine.

PerfectlyDone · 12/04/2018 09:41

The genetics of Very Old Age are fascinating and we have only just begun to scratch the surface of it all.
Everybody known somebody who lived to 100 and smoked 60 cigarettes a day - this does not mean that smoking is safe, it just means that some people seem to have some kind of genetic protection against the carcinogens in cigarette smoke.

For the record, for every Very Old Smoker I know, I have had dealings with at least 10 Very Young (30s) heart attack or stroke victims.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.