4 ms·

What I am saying there is that it is more appropriate to compare the lives (and thus outcomes) of regular individuals today to the 'elite' of those times, than

What I am saying there is that it is more appropriate to compare the lives (and thus outcomes) of regular individuals today to the 'elite' of those times, than to slaves and peasants.

watwut 8y ago
That makes no sense. Our lifespan statistics include all the people, poor and rich alike, so comparison with past should include all. Moreover, lifestyles and lifespan of elite in the past would not be possible without slaves and peasants of back then economy. It would amount to comparing our selves with fictional past. If we include only long living people of the past then yes, they lived long. If we include only people who had similar life to our, then yes, their lives are similar minus modern medicine. When we say "people in the past lived shorter", then the claim needs to include all demographics to have any meaning.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what point you're aiming to make. I am looking at the lives of an 'ancient' people whose lives were were most close to those of the average person in modern society. And then observing that in spite of the complete lack of modern niceties, medicine, technology, or even basic knowledge like how to properly clean water - they seemed to have extremely comparable life lengths. That is incredibly surprising and informative. If you could paraphrase your view or issue similarly clearly and concisely, it would be appreciated.
  - watwut 8y ago
    What do you mean by modern niceties? You mentioned food in the other comment, but these (elite) people generally had enough food. Compared to me, they have warmer climate. Winter adds threats that would kill old people without medicine sooner. You need also exclude contemporary poor people lifespan - which is around 8 years difference between English poor or rich by quick google search (found 12 for Americans but that seemed to be most pessimistic I found). If you compare demographic of people who have enough food, good shelter, does not have to work hard physically, did not get sick or disabled until later age, did not died as children, had good enough hygiene (they bathed), did not get injured, could rest when sick, did not had childbirth (fist childbirth was risky) then you must end up with similar lifespan - human genetics does not changes that fast. We are same species. I don't understand why that would be surprising or informative. ------------ I aimed to compare overall aims - average person to average person. So I could compare overall gains/looses.
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      I think we might be having some literal language issues here. I'm not sure you are understanding the point I'm making. However, I am sure that I'm certainly not understanding the point you're trying to make!

What I am saying there is that it is more appropriate to compare the lives (and thus outcomes) of regular individuals today to the 'elite' of those times, than to slaves and peasants.

watwut 8y ago

That makes no sense. Our lifespan statistics include all the people, poor and rich alike, so comparison with past should include all. Moreover, lifestyles and lifespan of elite in the past would not be possible without slaves and peasants of back then economy. It would amount to comparing our selves with fictional past. If we include only long living people of the past then yes, they lived long. If we include only people who had similar life to our, then yes, their lives are similar minus modern medicine. When we say "people in the past lived shorter", then the claim needs to include all demographics to have any meaning.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I'm not entirely sure what point you're aiming to make. I am looking at the lives of an 'ancient' people whose lives were were most close to those of the average person in modern society. And then observing that in spite of the complete lack of modern niceties, medicine, technology, or even basic knowledge like how to properly clean water - they seemed to have extremely comparable life lengths. That is incredibly surprising and informative. If you could paraphrase your view or issue similarly clearly and concisely, it would be appreciated.
- watwut 8y ago
  What do you mean by modern niceties? You mentioned food in the other comment, but these (elite) people generally had enough food. Compared to me, they have warmer climate. Winter adds threats that would kill old people without medicine sooner. You need also exclude contemporary poor people lifespan - which is around 8 years difference between English poor or rich by quick google search (found 12 for Americans but that seemed to be most pessimistic I found). If you compare demographic of people who have enough food, good shelter, does not have to work hard physically, did not get sick or disabled until later age, did not died as children, had good enough hygiene (they bathed), did not get injured, could rest when sick, did not had childbirth (fist childbirth was risky) then you must end up with similar lifespan - human genetics does not changes that fast. We are same species. I don't understand why that would be surprising or informative. ------------ I aimed to compare overall aims - average person to average person. So I could compare overall gains/looses.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I think we might be having some literal language issues here. I'm not sure you are understanding the point I'm making. However, I am sure that I'm certainly not understanding the point you're trying to make!