• knorke3
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    actually, you’re forgetting about amputees and people born with fewer limbs. it’s likely less than 1.

      • knorke3
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        the question is: is a skeleton that’s missing pieces still “one skeleton”? And if so, at which point does it become not a skeleton? Because i’m reasonably sure you wouldn’t call a severed foot a skeleton even though it is still arguably “one skeleton” that is just missing a lot of pieces.

        • Azzy@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          i think a skeleton is just multiple bones together that are attached. A pile of bones isn’t a skeleton, it’s a pile of bones

          • knorke3
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            so by your definition a severed foot is, indeed, a skeleton. huh.

            • Azzy@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              If an anthropologist found a 2-million year old intact foot, I think they’d call it a skeleton, sure.

                • Azzy@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  ehh, partial skeleton, skeleton, what’s the difference? a few missing bones never hurt anybody! /s

    • dgmib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      And you’re forgetting that about 1% of the population is pregnant at any given time and has another whole human inside of them.

      • knorke3
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        honestly curious about how those two would end up statistically balancing out.

        • ferret@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          There are not very many amputees compared to pregnant woman, and babies have a lot more bones that are in your typical limb

          • knorke3
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            in case anyone’s curious: the worldwide birthrate is estimated by the UN as ~140 million babies/year. assuming an average pregnancy of 9 months and no disregarding miscarriages/abortions, that leaves ~105,000,000 pregnant women on the world at any one time.
            According to this study there were 57.7 million people living with amputated limbs from traumatic causes worldwide in 2017. while this disregards birth defects i do believe that it’s a reasonable assumption to say that there are indeed less amputees than pregnant women worldwide.