4 ms·

How can you publish historical articles without knowing people actually grew old? Sure life expectancy was low, but that’s mainly because people died young. Ou

How can you publish historical articles without knowing people actually grew old? Sure life expectancy was low, but that’s mainly because people died young. Out of 14 children in a royal family you’d expect less than 5 to reach the age of 15, and that was for royalty. That doesn’t mean the people who didn’t die at birth or as young children died before they grew old. If you factor out all the child deaths, the average life expects wasn’t that much lower for a Knights Templar than it is for you. Hell, if you’re a poor 20+ American, you’ll probably live shorter, even with the help of modern medicine.

peteretep 8y ago
You said: > Sure life expectancy was low, but that’s mainly because people died young ... If you factor out all the child deaths, the average life expects wasn’t that much lower for a Knights Templar than it is for you Where literally the second damn line of the article: > For even wealthy landholding males, average life expectancy was about 31 years, rising to 48 years for those who made it to their twenties.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  what was the median life expectancy? on edit: they said factor out all the early childhood deaths - which probably aren't factored out for 'average' life expectancy.
  - yorwba 8y ago
    If you condition the average on reaching at least the age of twenty, that does factor out childhood deaths.
    - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
      oops - reading fail.
    - sitkack 8y ago
      Right, which puts the average at 48. A perfect time for wisdom teeth to take you out. The statistical language people use about talking about lifespan in before-times is rotten! That whole paragraph lays it out in its mathematical glory. > For even wealthy landholding males, average life expectancy was about 31 years, rising to 48 years for those who made it to their twenties. Even for wealthy families infant mortality was a problem. The AVERAGE is always the wrong metric!
      - AstralStorm 8y ago
        This is why they provided a Windsorized average too. (of people who lived till 20s)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- darkerside 8y ago
  The cited study appears to be based on a review of public records of English high society, which is a very limited perspective on the question. https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-985X.00261 https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-98...
  - mcguire 8y ago
    I hate humanities publishing. https://www.academia.edu/24376948/Estimation_of_life_expectancy_in_the_Middle_Ages https://www.academia.edu/24376948/Estimation_of_life_expecta... Tl;dr: Life expectancy at 25: ~50 in 1300-1350ish, lower during the plague.
ItsMe000001 8y ago
Just to add a link for perspective: It's not the middle ages but Victorian Britain, so still before widely available modern medicine, but in this lecture (transcript available): https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-the-microbes-how-infections-are-once-more-taking-over https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-the-... the professor mentions as an aside that > And what is interesting, if you take out the childhood mortality, the Victorian person between 1850 and 1880 lived slightly longer, if he was a male, than you do today. So, your life expectancy at five, in England, as a male, in 1870 was slightly longer than it is now, which is an extraordinary statistic, slightly shorter then if you were a female. So it seems to me that medicine's main contribution to life expectancy is for women (making giving birth much less risky) and for children. The rest of life expectancy gains probably is from gains in sanitation, clean water, nutrition, life/work conditions. It seems that the lives saved by antibiotics did't actually move the statistics by all that much, never mind all the other stuff medicine came up with. Note: This isn't saying "there was no progress" (it comes from a professor of medicine after all, and obviously there was a lot of progress overall), it is about identifying the specific areas where progress was made, and what specifically lead to progress in what area. So you don't look at different groups and strata and not one single population number.
- pcrh 8y ago
  The median may not have changed much, or even the age of the oldest. However,the distribution has changed significantly. Check out this chart of mortality curves from 1851 to a forecast for 2031. Mortality curves they have become much more "square" than they used to be. https://i.imgur.com/ONRm4Ep.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ONRm4Ep.jpg
  - ItsMe000001 8y ago
    My quote explicitly stated that it excluded children and women. What is included in that image? I assume it's everybody ("persons"), so I'm not sure why you want to use it as a counter-point to what I quoted. What I wrote already acknowledged the huge amount of progress for children and women. Of course the curve shows significant improvement when you include those groups. See my last paragraph in the comment you replied to.
sametmax 8y ago
That's an interesting point: - Plato died at 80. - Confucius at 72. - Michelangelo at 88. - Sun Tzu at 75. - Etc. When we point out that our current life hygiene practices may be unhealthy, people tend to respond that "we live longer than ever". Yes. But then you have security: you are much less likely to get killed by a thief today, or a rapist. Then you have the comfort: we have running water, electricity, much easier work load, holidays, transportation and we eat everyday. well, if you take the rich, famous or protected people from many years ago, they already lived quite long because they had security and comfort. So basically, yes it's good to be able to eat everyday. Yes we live longer because of it. No that doesn't mean it's ok to avoid the debate about pesticides or nanoparticles. Yes, it's good that vaccines eliminate the most terrible disease on earth. Yes we live longer because of it. No that doesn't mean it's ok to avoid the debate about a new vaccine or vaccine policy. Yes it's good that we have less very hard physical work. Yes we live longer because of it. No that doesn't mean it's ok to avoid the debate about the stress or lack of meaning we created in our society.
- bsder 8y ago
  > - Plato died at 80. > - Confucius at 72. > - Michelangelo at 88. > - Sun Tzu at 75. > - Etc. These men were also not your common laborers or soldiers. Being rich and/or powerful has always been a benefit to your lifespan.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    That's pretty much my point.
  - darkerside 8y ago
    It actually may not be wealth and power that make the difference here, although that would be the simple answer. Those men were also not laborers who stopped working when their physical bodies slowed down. Imagine being a farmer or blacksmith who has turned 40 years old. You probably can't read, or contribute much to society anymore. Retirement is an indicator for mortality even today, so the effect was likely just as strong back then, possibly enhanced by the inability to make alternative contributions to society.

peteretep 8y ago

You said: > Sure life expectancy was low, but that’s mainly because people died young ... If you factor out all the child deaths, the average life expects wasn’t that much lower for a Knights Templar than it is for you Where literally the second damn line of the article: > For even wealthy landholding males, average life expectancy was about 31 years, rising to 48 years for those who made it to their twenties.

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
what was the median life expectancy? on edit: they said factor out all the early childhood deaths - which probably aren't factored out for 'average' life expectancy.
- yorwba 8y ago
  If you condition the average on reaching at least the age of twenty, that does factor out childhood deaths.
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    oops - reading fail.
  - sitkack 8y ago
    Right, which puts the average at 48. A perfect time for wisdom teeth to take you out. The statistical language people use about talking about lifespan in before-times is rotten! That whole paragraph lays it out in its mathematical glory. > For even wealthy landholding males, average life expectancy was about 31 years, rising to 48 years for those who made it to their twenties. Even for wealthy families infant mortality was a problem. The AVERAGE is always the wrong metric!
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      This is why they provided a Windsorized average too. (of people who lived till 20s)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
darkerside 8y ago
The cited study appears to be based on a review of public records of English high society, which is a very limited perspective on the question. https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-985X.00261 https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-98...
- mcguire 8y ago
  I hate humanities publishing. https://www.academia.edu/24376948/Estimation_of_life_expectancy_in_the_Middle_Ages https://www.academia.edu/24376948/Estimation_of_life_expecta... Tl;dr: Life expectancy at 25: ~50 in 1300-1350ish, lower during the plague.

ItsMe000001 8y ago

Just to add a link for perspective: It's not the middle ages but Victorian Britain, so still before widely available modern medicine, but in this lecture (transcript available): https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-the-microbes-how-infections-are-once-more-taking-over https://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/return-of-the-... the professor mentions as an aside that > And what is interesting, if you take out the childhood mortality, the Victorian person between 1850 and 1880 lived slightly longer, if he was a male, than you do today. So, your life expectancy at five, in England, as a male, in 1870 was slightly longer than it is now, which is an extraordinary statistic, slightly shorter then if you were a female. So it seems to me that medicine's main contribution to life expectancy is for women (making giving birth much less risky) and for children. The rest of life expectancy gains probably is from gains in sanitation, clean water, nutrition, life/work conditions. It seems that the lives saved by antibiotics did't actually move the statistics by all that much, never mind all the other stuff medicine came up with. Note: This isn't saying "there was no progress" (it comes from a professor of medicine after all, and obviously there was a lot of progress overall), it is about identifying the specific areas where progress was made, and what specifically lead to progress in what area. So you don't look at different groups and strata and not one single population number.

pcrh 8y ago
The median may not have changed much, or even the age of the oldest. However,the distribution has changed significantly. Check out this chart of mortality curves from 1851 to a forecast for 2031. Mortality curves they have become much more "square" than they used to be. https://i.imgur.com/ONRm4Ep.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ONRm4Ep.jpg
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  My quote explicitly stated that it excluded children and women. What is included in that image? I assume it's everybody ("persons"), so I'm not sure why you want to use it as a counter-point to what I quoted. What I wrote already acknowledged the huge amount of progress for children and women. Of course the curve shows significant improvement when you include those groups. See my last paragraph in the comment you replied to.

sametmax 8y ago

That's an interesting point: - Plato died at 80. - Confucius at 72. - Michelangelo at 88. - Sun Tzu at 75. - Etc. When we point out that our current life hygiene practices may be unhealthy, people tend to respond that "we live longer than ever". Yes. But then you have security: you are much less likely to get killed by a thief today, or a rapist. Then you have the comfort: we have running water, electricity, much easier work load, holidays, transportation and we eat everyday. well, if you take the rich, famous or protected people from many years ago, they already lived quite long because they had security and comfort. So basically, yes it's good to be able to eat everyday. Yes we live longer because of it. No that doesn't mean it's ok to avoid the debate about pesticides or nanoparticles. Yes, it's good that vaccines eliminate the most terrible disease on earth. Yes we live longer because of it. No that doesn't mean it's ok to avoid the debate about a new vaccine or vaccine policy. Yes it's good that we have less very hard physical work. Yes we live longer because of it. No that doesn't mean it's ok to avoid the debate about the stress or lack of meaning we created in our society.

bsder 8y ago
> - Plato died at 80. > - Confucius at 72. > - Michelangelo at 88. > - Sun Tzu at 75. > - Etc. These men were also not your common laborers or soldiers. Being rich and/or powerful has always been a benefit to your lifespan.
- sametmax 8y ago
  That's pretty much my point.
- darkerside 8y ago
  It actually may not be wealth and power that make the difference here, although that would be the simple answer. Those men were also not laborers who stopped working when their physical bodies slowed down. Imagine being a farmer or blacksmith who has turned 40 years old. You probably can't read, or contribute much to society anymore. Retirement is an indicator for mortality even today, so the effect was likely just as strong back then, possibly enhanced by the inability to make alternative contributions to society.