OOP would probably be horrified to learn how many mothers there actually are between them and ancient history. Bcs 25 is definitely much, much older than the average age of a first childbirth over human history.
Microblog Memes
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
The average mother having their average daughter at an average of 25 is historically probably quite an overestimate. 20 would be a much safer guess, but there's a good chance it's lower than that too.
Doesn't change the math that much though, easily less than a thousand generations since the advent of agriculture either way.
Surprisingly no. At least in central and western Europe, child marriages were very much a nobility thing. Securing alliances and such. And even for those the first child may well have been much later.
I don’t have an individual statistic on hand but https://fakehistoryhunter.net/2026/01/18/age-of-marriage-giving-birth-in-medieval-europe/ has collected a bunch of sources that suggest that the usual age of first marriage in medieval Europe for women was around their mid 20s, pretty much the same as today.
I'm not talking about child marriage. Traditionally women were considered to be of marrying age at around 15 or 16 (note that this doesn't mean they got married at exactly this age -- it means the lower bound). The blog you link seems to be intentionally or unintentionally conflating child marriage (prepubescent girls) with marrying between 15 and 20. And indeed the sources it cites seem to largely support an average marrying age of around 20 for women until the 17th century.
This is also of course only for the medieval period, which is relatively recent all things considered. That still leaves 8500 years unaccounted for until the advent of agriculture, and during those 8500 years it's far more likely for women to have given birth to their first child younger rather than older than in the medieval period.
Lots of babies and children died before adulthood though, so its actually not a bad bet for 25 as an average birthing age for one that survives to adulthood. Not that every woman would lose her first 2 kids or whatever but enough certainly did to drive the average up somewhat from what it would be with modern medicine.
Always remember: these people were DNA-identical to us. All this life-saving, life-extending, life-improving technology... is always just 2-3 generations from poof
i think it's also worth noting that a whole lot of children basically died due to malnutrition ... think about it. contraception was not existent, so if a woman gets pregnant 8 times, but the family can only feed 2 children, that effectively means that 6 would essentially starve (or die due to other "preventable" diseases, but actually the better prevention than modern medicine is just food, since enough food strengthenes the immune system).
even if you had modern medicine at the time, children would still starve; the thing that really drives down child mortality is just a lower birth-rate altogether, since the family can still feed 2 children, regardless of whether they actually make 2 or 8 babies.
Yeah. As society becomes more complex, maturity and preparedness comes much later. "Growing up" takes much longer.
Go back a thousand years, things were much simpler. There was less to navigate and learn so "the real world" started much earlier.
Look at any other creature without society and see how their life unfolds. They're "adult" very quickly because within a short time they've got enough figured out to go out into the world alone.
Meanwhile, we're now at a point where it's normal to have a first child in the 30s and 40s, feeling completely unready.

i looked that up a while ago and apparently the median age of first childbirth was around 21 or 22 for women, though this depends on wealth: wealthy people had children earlier (on average), going down to about 16-18 for many noble women.
poor people often didn't have children at all.
The greatest difference between us and our distant ancestors isn't intelligence. It's the knowledge we've inherited. Education is humanity's greatest achievement.
We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. I'm grateful to those who lifted us up, and I'll humbly do my part to lift those who come after us.
It's society & available materials.
If you took all your knowledge 10k years ago the daily life would still fairly resemble the lives they had.
Between what the people 12k years ago knew and what just about any person today knows, you could start agriculture, building houses, at least the idea of digging wells, hygiene, the wheel, writing, and probably some others. A decently educated person in history, technology, or science (and I don't mean university-level) could add metalworking, astronomy, and animal domestication. The biggest limits to what you could do up to the industrial age would be megafauna and dieing before you accomplished it. If you passed on education, scientific theory, and the knowledge you had, there's a fair chance those things could be continued after you died.
As far as society goes, there is good evidence chimps have society, as well as early homonids. I'm pretty sure we had that 12k years ago, too.
I don't think you would have much impact. Even if we assume you are extremely good at learning new (i.e. old) languages, extremely popular (everything you suggest is done), and you have a rich benefactor who houses and feeds you, you are still lacking the giant supply chain stack that is absolutely required to get anything done in the modern world.
The only thing I could maybe get done is making some extremely bad and extremely expensive soap. Concrete or metals would be so far out of reach, I might as well work on a perpetual motion machine or try to transform lead to gold. Just go into the woods and try to mine some iron and you see what I mean.
The average modern person knows probably less about agriculture and building houses than the average person 12k years ago, and those are pretty intuitive.
The wheel isn't some complex contraption that needs to be improved over generations. It's probably the most simple tool imaginable, but it's also useless unless you have roads.
I'm always amazed how modern people have no idea how useless they would be just a few hundred years ago.
The guy on the primitive technology channel smelled iron from orange bacteria. He used 3 different methods with his most complex tools being stone and clay. Copper and tin are generally easier, and are exposed on the surface in many areas. The only thing stopping people from figuring out bronze earlier was location and luck. I think the bronze age starting 7000 years earlier would have had an impact.
I know how to make black powder, and generally know how to source it. Between that and bronze, you could have guns over 11000 years earlier than we did.
I've built houses.
I know the basics of making paper. Even if I didn't, clay tablets are easy. Writing 4000 years earlier would necessarily advance knowledge if nothing else happened. Throw in some math and the concept of zero and you could advance knowledge in those areas by thousands of years. Math isn't relevant? Some of the oldest structures we have around use math and astronomy. Imagine if we had those 5000 years earlier.
One of the bigger reasons people don't learn more languages is because they don't have the time or interest. One of the best ways to learn is immersion. Being in a situation where you have to learn a new language if you want to communicate with anyone else would certainly be a motivator to put in the effort.
This is actually a great perspective to point out against anti-intellectual arguments like evolution being fake, when people ask why humans are not evolving. What kind of evolution can you expect in 450 iterations? That's nothing in the timeline of the earth. Plus 450 mothers is already more than what some religious fanatics claim is the age of the earth.
Actually, this math is almost exactly how the young earth creationist cult came to their number for the age of the earth. The counted out all the begats in the Bible from Adam to Jesus and multiplied by an average amount of time between births.
I pointed out that the people in those photos screaming at Ruby Bridges are still alive and vote like mad and my brother was flabbergasted.
Idk, I'm very whelmed by this, warnings weren't needed, sounds just about right.

That's not to say that some of these cities weren't huge though. Rome had ~750K at it's peak. Some places in China had 1 million. We just have a lot more huge cities now.
https://www.worldatlas.com/ancient-world/the-largest-ancient-cities-ever-built.html
Gives perspective on how accelerated change has become in modern times.
Anything but metrics…
The advent of agriculture (11.5 kya) was 4.5 hectomothers ago
Similarly: we all come from an unbroken line of people who had children.
It may be that throughout history not having kids is common. Gay people who never had children may have been common. Ugly, poor or unpleasant people who never managed to find a partner may have been common. Asexual people may have been common.
Straight people who had sex but never had kids were probably not common, just because good contraception wasn't available.
Still, if you're a person who, for whatever reason, is not going to have kids, none of your direct ancestors can understand that life.
First law of socio-genetics: Celibacy is not hereditary
From some book of Murphy's laws I found at home as a kid and fell in love with
Even crazier if you think in human lifetimes. Taking the global life expectancy of 72 years, the beginning of our era was 28 lifetimes ago.
Middle Ages ended 8 lifetimes ago.
Pre-modern first-birth ages were more in the range 15 to 20. So rather 5 to 6 mothers per century.
You're assuming that your matrilineal line is entirely composed of firstborns.
I'm not who you were responding to, but first borns certainly aren't necessary. High fertility, low marriage age places like West Africa (Niger in particular has an average of 7 births per woman) meet the 15-20 range pretty spot on. A woman can easily have a child every year or so from 15 to 20, then they sort of coast to a stop by their late 20s. The majority of births are early because their so close together.
Average reported marriage age of women in Niger is 19... I've lived there, and in the village, it's 15 or 16. I have seen 9 year olds get "married" but it was really more like a reservation to get real married when she's 15 or so. Even using official stats, 1 kid before 20 and 3 or 4 kids before age 25 is very achievable.
I have personally met 30-year old grandmothers there who didn't think anything of it. They're 75% of the way to average life expectancy anyways.
I would say an average of 5 mothers per century up to 1850 or 1900 sounds about right, and is still a fairly conservative figure.
What impressed me more was just how MANY ancestors you would have at that 40 generations back.
Mathematically it's a lot. Realistically a lot of those ancestors end up being common after 4-6 generations.
You know how the Mormons keep genealogy records for, like, everyone they possibly can? I am American so we may be more mixed than some places but those records went back pretty far and out in a lot of directions geographically. No overlap, lots and lots of people. I mean at some point mathematically it's more people than the population of the world so you have to be right but they had 20 or more generations in some directions, it was thousands of people on that chart going back hundreds of years, it was crazy.
I also did notice that most of my ancestresses did marry between 25-28, not 14 as Little House on the Prairie had me believing before.
I think about this, and do this math in my head too, all the time. 80 mothers to Ancient Rome. 400 mothers to start of farming.
I looked up the average age of mothers at the time of their first child birth in 1863 because I really badly wanted to make a joke about a "score" being 20 for that reason.
Sadly the average age was 22-26 so my day is ruined.
By this math, humans have only been around for about 80,000 mothers.
Idk, they had kids a lot earlier than 25 for the vast, vast majority of world history.
Empires made calendars based on the first king, hundreds of years ended up being like a dozen kings.
Makes sense
My parents are/were 90. I started telling them they've been alive for more than a third of the history of the United States. They loved hearing that shit.
!anythingbutmetric@discuss.tchncs.de
According to this scale, Aboriginal Australian cultures are 2,600 mothers old.
Go count how many sex acts were necessary for your existence.
kiefbowl
Username checks out.