7 ms·

To be fair, average life expectancy of people around that period (early to mid 1800s) was at best ~40, so "18" would have been basically middle-aged ;-)

hnuser123456 6y ago
That's expectancy at birth. If you made it to 20, you were likely to make it to 60, even in the mid 1800s. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
setr 6y ago
average life expectancy is a trap -- the distribution is binomial. People tended to either die early, as infants, or live to an average 60.[0] Specifically, if you were age 0, you have an expected lifespan of 40, but by age 10, you have an expected lifespan of 60. Today expected lifespan after reaching age 10 is better, but not as extreme as the average tells you: you'd expect to hit to live to 77. [1] So most people who were actually wandering out of their cribs would have found 60 to be a perfectly normal age; and 40 would still be middle aged -- the past wasn't that much different from the present :) you just wouldn't expect to see great-grandfathers as often (but at the same time, you don't see many today because the average first child-birth age has shifted upwards as well[2]) [0] https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011 https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expecta... [1] https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/life-expectancy-in-the-1800s-not-as-bad-as-reported/ https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/life-expectancy-in-... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Average-maternal-age-at-childbirth-1901-2014-and-at-first-childbirth-1960-2014-B_fig1_285584957 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Average-maternal-age-a...
- Tainnor 6y ago
  > the distribution is binomial. That would be odd. I think you mean "bimodal". ;) Sorry for the nitpick.
  - ashkankiani 6y ago
    It was a good nitpick since I read the first sentence and was really confused what the person was on about.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ksm1717 6y ago
Fool. You thought you could just tap into a community of chronic mansplainers and pedants to mention historic life expectancy without the “infant mortality rate” caveat?
- setr 6y ago
  I mean, the derived conclusion is entirely wrong because of it. It's kind of 100% relevant.
  - ksm1717 6y ago
    It was a joke...
    - setr 6y ago
      I understood that, but your joke was nonsensical. Making jokes about HN being overly pedantic in general, when no pedantry is occurring, is just randomly complaining. There's no context. It would be sensible if you thought there was pedantry in progress..... but you'd be wrong :-)
      - ksm1717 6y ago
        No I’m saying that the comment that brought up life expectancy was a joke. Responding to that with a 15 pager was the aforementioned pedantry. My comment was not a joke just a cheap shot
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]

hnuser123456 6y ago

That's expectancy at birth. If you made it to 20, you were likely to make it to 60, even in the mid 1800s. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

setr 6y ago

average life expectancy is a trap -- the distribution is binomial. People tended to either die early, as infants, or live to an average 60.[0] Specifically, if you were age 0, you have an expected lifespan of 40, but by age 10, you have an expected lifespan of 60. Today expected lifespan after reaching age 10 is better, but not as extreme as the average tells you: you'd expect to hit to live to 77. [1] So most people who were actually wandering out of their cribs would have found 60 to be a perfectly normal age; and 40 would still be middle aged -- the past wasn't that much different from the present :) you just wouldn't expect to see great-grandfathers as often (but at the same time, you don't see many today because the average first child-birth age has shifted upwards as well[2]) [0] https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expectancy-age-1850-2011 https://www.infoplease.com/us/health-statistics/life-expecta... [1] https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/life-expectancy-in-the-1800s-not-as-bad-as-reported/ https://gcanyon.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/life-expectancy-in-... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Average-maternal-age-at-childbirth-1901-2014-and-at-first-childbirth-1960-2014-B_fig1_285584957 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Average-maternal-age-a...

Tainnor 6y ago
> the distribution is binomial. That would be odd. I think you mean "bimodal". ;) Sorry for the nitpick.
- ashkankiani 6y ago
  It was a good nitpick since I read the first sentence and was really confused what the person was on about.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ksm1717 6y ago

Fool. You thought you could just tap into a community of chronic mansplainers and pedants to mention historic life expectancy without the “infant mortality rate” caveat?

setr 6y ago
I mean, the derived conclusion is entirely wrong because of it. It's kind of 100% relevant.
- ksm1717 6y ago
  It was a joke...
  - setr 6y ago
    I understood that, but your joke was nonsensical. Making jokes about HN being overly pedantic in general, when no pedantry is occurring, is just randomly complaining. There's no context. It would be sensible if you thought there was pedantry in progress..... but you'd be wrong :-)
    - ksm1717 6y ago
      No I’m saying that the comment that brought up life expectancy was a joke. Responding to that with a 15 pager was the aforementioned pedantry. My comment was not a joke just a cheap shot
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]