Kitchen_Music1302 t1_j53g10v wrote
Reply to comment by Rajvagli in Ancient humans and their early depictions of the universe: “It is no exaggeration to say that astronomy has existed as an exact science for more than five millennia,” writes the late science historian John North. by clayt6
I disagree. The bad eyesight the average person has now wouldn't of been such a hindrance they couldn't forage
ammonium_bot t1_j54i7wp wrote
> now wouldn't of been
Did you mean to say "wouldn't have"?
Explanation: You probably meant to say could've/should've/would've which sounds like 'of' but is actually short for 'have'.
Total mistakes found: 745
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon
Rajvagli t1_j55tjtx wrote
I’m not so sure about that, I had -4 vision and couldn’t see anything in focus farther than a foot away. Are you saying that I wouldn’t have more difficulty gathering and foraging than someone with better vision?
Kitchen_Music1302 t1_j55uu78 wrote
I'm sure you would I just wouldn't think to the degree that you get kicked out of a village of die of starvation. If that is true though, there were a lot of roles for people to have in a village that didn't require good vision. Fishing, helping with child rearing or gathering wood for example
Rajvagli t1_j55xz8w wrote
Fair point, I guess I’m not familiar with family/tribal roles enough to know one way or another. To me, poor eyesight is a negative trait, and I would expect back then, it would be harder to find a mate with such a weakness. Therefor, limiting the genetic pool of that individual.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments