4 ms·

My understanding of historical life expectancy is that, adjusting for infant mortality and wars, we aren't significantly longer-lived now than in the 19th centu

My understanding of historical life expectancy is that, adjusting for infant mortality and wars, we aren't significantly longer-lived now than in the 19th century. Specifically, once you've made it to 40, you're nearly as likely to make 76 then as now. I will try to dig up a source and edit as soon as I find time. edit: Found a very useful source, though it only weakly corroborates my initial comment. The vast majority of gains in life expectancy have indeed been for infant mortality and early-life infections, but there is still roughly a seven year differential in the life expectancy of of a forty year old: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

moultano 8y ago
The gains are more modest at 40 than at birth, but still significant. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Life-expectancy-by-age-in-the-UK-1700-to-2013.png https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Life-e...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
whoopdedo 8y ago
But more people are making it to 40 and thus surviving longer, making the average age of the population higher. The two prominent changes in age come at the end of the 19th century when sanitary practice was introduced into medicine, and the middle of the 20th century when antibiotics began to be used. This indirectly increases the age of members of congress. I agree with what Alex3917 says above, that it has to do with needing to win votes from more and older voters. The graphs in the second half of the article also show that incumbency has increased, because longer living voters will support the familiar name. Then there was a dip in the '70s I assume from a combined factors of many of the older members retiring at the same time there was significant cultural change happening. Also on the graph of members of the House, there's a sudden rise in age at the start of the 21st century. The Senate graph has no corresponding change. I can only make a wild guess but that would be the amount of money that can be made in the private sector is so much more now that younger people are staying away from public service.

moultano 8y ago

The gains are more modest at 40 than at birth, but still significant. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Life-expectancy-by-age-in-the-UK-1700-to-2013.png https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Life-e...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

whoopdedo 8y ago

But more people are making it to 40 and thus surviving longer, making the average age of the population higher. The two prominent changes in age come at the end of the 19th century when sanitary practice was introduced into medicine, and the middle of the 20th century when antibiotics began to be used. This indirectly increases the age of members of congress. I agree with what Alex3917 says above, that it has to do with needing to win votes from more and older voters. The graphs in the second half of the article also show that incumbency has increased, because longer living voters will support the familiar name. Then there was a dip in the '70s I assume from a combined factors of many of the older members retiring at the same time there was significant cultural change happening. Also on the graph of members of the House, there's a sudden rise in age at the start of the 21st century. The Senate graph has no corresponding change. I can only make a wild guess but that would be the amount of money that can be made in the private sector is so much more now that younger people are staying away from public service.