4 ms·

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s

This is a common misconception. Life expectancy hasn't changed much. It's children dying that bright down the average in earlier years. If you lived to your 20s your life expectancy was pretty much the same as it is now.

linspace 5y ago
I have heard this multiple times and I would love some citations because although most of the reduction in life expectancy may come from death at child birth, for obvious mathematical reasons, I cannot believe wars, famine and disease don't account for anything
- watwut 5y ago
  And lack of antibiotics.
- fpoling 5y ago
  [1] shows pretty convincingly that probability of a dearth due to violence or war has not changed during the last 2000 years. What we perceive as peace is a consequence of extremely violent WWII and to lesser extent WWI that killed vastly more people even after accounting for population increase than wars in the 19th century. [1] - https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violence.pdf https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violence.pdf
  - watwut 5y ago
    WWII was 80 years ago. So yes, when when we compare current mortality due to violenve with past, we don't count WWII as "current".
watwut 5y ago
This is not true. Live expectancy for adults did changed a lot too, just not as much as when you count also kids. > If a medieval person was able to survive childhood, then he had about a 50% chance of living up to 50–55 years. This is from wiki. Our life expectancy is much higher. In fact, contemporary medicine is saving a lot of adults.
cm2012 5y ago
No
jeffbee 5y ago
According the the US Social Security Administration actuarial tables, the life expectancy of male Americans aged 65 years has gone from 12 to 21 years in the last century. This has massive demographic implications.
teachingassist 5y ago
I agree, but cancer rates rise sharply as you age. So, your claim (that life expectancy hasn't changed much) doesn't contradict the parent's claim (that a lot more people are dying of age-related cancers).
nkozyra 5y ago
In Victorian England (1840) if you made it to adulthood (20) your life expectancy was ~ 60. It's 82 today. The effects are not as dramatic as when infant mortality is included but our life expectancy has absolutely increased. It's a compelling theory, too, because the average age of a cancer is 66 today. But it really addresses the idea of cancer being less prevalent than less likely.
inglor_cz 5y ago
This is most emphatically not true and it is one of the reasons why contemporary pension systems are nearing bankruptcy and healthcare providers struggle with not having enough geriatric professionals. Living into your 80s was uncommon prior to, well, even 1950. Nowadays, many developed countries have significant cohorts of people 80+ and even 90+. Unfortunately, while those people are alive, they are not particularly healthy. We haven't yet learnt how to expand average "healthspan" as much as average "lifespan".

linspace 5y ago

I have heard this multiple times and I would love some citations because although most of the reduction in life expectancy may come from death at child birth, for obvious mathematical reasons, I cannot believe wars, famine and disease don't account for anything

watwut 5y ago
And lack of antibiotics.
fpoling 5y ago
[1] shows pretty convincingly that probability of a dearth due to violence or war has not changed during the last 2000 years. What we perceive as peace is a consequence of extremely violent WWII and to lesser extent WWI that killed vastly more people even after accounting for population increase than wars in the 19th century. [1] - https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violence.pdf https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/violence.pdf
- watwut 5y ago
  WWII was 80 years ago. So yes, when when we compare current mortality due to violenve with past, we don't count WWII as "current".

watwut 5y ago

This is not true. Live expectancy for adults did changed a lot too, just not as much as when you count also kids. > If a medieval person was able to survive childhood, then he had about a 50% chance of living up to 50–55 years. This is from wiki. Our life expectancy is much higher. In fact, contemporary medicine is saving a lot of adults.

cm2012 5y ago

jeffbee 5y ago

According the the US Social Security Administration actuarial tables, the life expectancy of male Americans aged 65 years has gone from 12 to 21 years in the last century. This has massive demographic implications.

teachingassist 5y ago

I agree, but cancer rates rise sharply as you age. So, your claim (that life expectancy hasn't changed much) doesn't contradict the parent's claim (that a lot more people are dying of age-related cancers).

nkozyra 5y ago

In Victorian England (1840) if you made it to adulthood (20) your life expectancy was ~ 60. It's 82 today. The effects are not as dramatic as when infant mortality is included but our life expectancy has absolutely increased. It's a compelling theory, too, because the average age of a cancer is 66 today. But it really addresses the idea of cancer being less prevalent than less likely.

inglor_cz 5y ago

This is most emphatically not true and it is one of the reasons why contemporary pension systems are nearing bankruptcy and healthcare providers struggle with not having enough geriatric professionals. Living into your 80s was uncommon prior to, well, even 1950. Nowadays, many developed countries have significant cohorts of people 80+ and even 90+. Unfortunately, while those people are alive, they are not particularly healthy. We haven't yet learnt how to expand average "healthspan" as much as average "lifespan".