You must log in or register to comment.
Kangaroos do the same. To be fair, evolutionarily it makes sense. (They only do it when they have literally no escape, and the choice is either both of them dying or the kid dying, soo…)
I bet in pre-history it happened more often than not in humans, and within recorded history has likely happened more times than anyone would admit.
eeeh our whole evolutionary niche is to be so social that we’ll form bonds with a literal rock, i can’t see the vast vast vast majority of mentally healthy humans managing to do it, more likely they’d try to gently throw the child away from the danger and sacrifice themselves.
I don’t think that would be the general case with humans under these kinds of circumstances. For most of history, women had many more children on average than we see in most of the world today. It was expected that many wouldn’t live past three years old in much of known, recorded history. I can only imagine in circumstances even more primitive than what we know of, something like this wouldn’t be as unthinkable as you’re describing.
Yeah. We evolved to survive as a group. Not as individuals.
Kangaroos while they do sometimes form groups, are far far less social, and kids of dead parents aren’t adopted like what would happen in a human group.
Plenty of anecdotal stories of infant brothers and sisters not making it through hiding during the holocaust because of muffling their cries.
I don’t care enough to ruin my day by validating a of them though.
Okay, but I don’t think this was intentional suffocation of the kids. This seems much more as an attempt to get everyone to survive
I read that parents ate some kids during famines. Could be bullshit though, I don’t want to look.
oh you can validate them real easy: it’s anecdotal, thus false until actually proven.
That babies name? Its true. He grew up to be albert einstine
Oh absolutely. We used to not give kids names until they were 3 years or so old. To not get attached.
