3 ms·

Life expectancy after age 5 has not budged much over the centuries, though you’ll find most graphs begin at a trough circa 1900. Prior to that it was about the

Life expectancy after age 5 has not budged much over the centuries, though you’ll find most graphs begin at a trough circa 1900. Prior to that it was about the same as it is now in many countries. So “we’re living longer” is not the answer, it probably has much more to do with the massive amounts of new chemicals and pollutants we’ve exposed ourselves to. No barriers to transport along with unrestrained trade and frequent migration also mean were exposed to way more pathogens than we evolved to encounter, so some of them could also be blowback from legitimate immune responses.

jemmyw 3y ago
https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit... has life expectancies for age ranges from 1841 and shows a huge difference for a 5 year old. If conditions get worse with age then the average going from 55 to 82 (from age 5) could hide a lot of data about these disorders.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. You see this basically throughout history except in very bad times like famine or major plagues, or were there is persistent dietary issues as we introduced in the late 19thc, or early on in the switch to farming. Rural areas also tend to do better than urban.
  - jemmyw 3y ago
    Thanks for the link that is informative.
  - taeric 3y ago
    This feels wrong, though. Measles alone meant you likely lost kids in that age range. Antiseptics, as well, were huge in saving people from from otherwise deadly nicks.
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      Otherwise healthy people rarely die from nicks. Me and my kids regularly get cuts or miscellaneous wounds and I’ve never needed antibiotics or to do anything besides wash them with water. Measles is fairly low mortality in absolute terms. Even within living memory, getting the measles and the mumps was a normal childhood experience. The overall mortality is 1 or 2 per thousand and the disease is most dangerous in under 5s and over 20s. So before widespread vaccination, everyone was exposed before their 20s and we excluded under 5s from the count.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Do you regularly walk through non paved paths? Work in soil? Both common things in the past. Both common ways to have a non safe nick. Edit: I realize 5 is the cutoff for this study because measles and the like. It is deadly to youth in pretty stark contrast to older.
        Amezarak 3y ago
        Yes, I live in a rural area and work outside a lot. I also get scratched to bleeding by animals fairly frequently. My kids are magnets for all kind of mysterious injuries. It is simply not common to get serious infections from everyday wounds for otherwise healthy people. Indeed, for most of human history, cities had higher mortality than the countryside due to disease. "Random cuts" are not nearly as dangerous as "lots of people." “Deadly” can be true for measles in young children but again, it’s important to be clear that the actual mortality is very low. It certainly contributed (with many other diseases) to lowering life expectancy for infants, but it was not even close to a death sentence; the vast majority survived. As I said, it was basically a rite of passage even for our grandparent’s generation.
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        Anthrax, coccidioidomycosis, schistosomiasis, hantavirus… you live in a charmed area no doubt
watwut 3y ago
This is just not true dude. Life people died in all age from all kind of curable issues. Mortality of women during child birth is massively lower. That is the most apparently obvious one. Whole classes of diseases from malnutrition are down or don't exists or are fixable (anemia, lack of iodine, that sort of thing). Tuberculosis was frequent enough to have sanatorium specializing in that. Lepra. When you read history of epidemics, of food and generally of medicine you find a lot of premature deaths that just don't happen now.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  > Life people died in all age from all kind of curable issues. Sure, absolutely. Just not in large enough numbers to drag the numbers down lower than today [after age 5], when we've dramatically increased the number of deaths due to preventable issues. For example, heart disease was much rarer, and cancer incidence was less than 10% of today's numbers. Fewer people died in car accidents, and fewer were shot by AR15s. The causes shifted around. We made medical progress, but we took steps back as well. As I also mentioned, there've been peaks and troughs. As the paper I cited mentions, health became so bad after the mid-1800s peak, by the late 1800s and early 1900s, the British army had to lower its height requirements to absurd levels because of malnutrition - malnutrition that was a direct consequence of technological advancement!

jemmyw 3y ago

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit... has life expectancies for age ranges from 1841 and shows a huge difference for a 5 year old. If conditions get worse with age then the average going from 55 to 82 (from age 5) could hide a lot of data about these disorders.

Amezarak 3y ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19440443/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. You see this basically throughout history except in very bad times like famine or major plagues, or were there is persistent dietary issues as we introduced in the late 19thc, or early on in the switch to farming. Rural areas also tend to do better than urban.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  Thanks for the link that is informative.
- taeric 3y ago
  This feels wrong, though. Measles alone meant you likely lost kids in that age range. Antiseptics, as well, were huge in saving people from from otherwise deadly nicks.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Otherwise healthy people rarely die from nicks. Me and my kids regularly get cuts or miscellaneous wounds and I’ve never needed antibiotics or to do anything besides wash them with water. Measles is fairly low mortality in absolute terms. Even within living memory, getting the measles and the mumps was a normal childhood experience. The overall mortality is 1 or 2 per thousand and the disease is most dangerous in under 5s and over 20s. So before widespread vaccination, everyone was exposed before their 20s and we excluded under 5s from the count.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Do you regularly walk through non paved paths? Work in soil? Both common things in the past. Both common ways to have a non safe nick. Edit: I realize 5 is the cutoff for this study because measles and the like. It is deadly to youth in pretty stark contrast to older.
      - Amezarak 3y ago
        Yes, I live in a rural area and work outside a lot. I also get scratched to bleeding by animals fairly frequently. My kids are magnets for all kind of mysterious injuries. It is simply not common to get serious infections from everyday wounds for otherwise healthy people. Indeed, for most of human history, cities had higher mortality than the countryside due to disease. "Random cuts" are not nearly as dangerous as "lots of people." “Deadly” can be true for measles in young children but again, it’s important to be clear that the actual mortality is very low. It certainly contributed (with many other diseases) to lowering life expectancy for infants, but it was not even close to a death sentence; the vast majority survived. As I said, it was basically a rite of passage even for our grandparent’s generation.
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        Anthrax, coccidioidomycosis, schistosomiasis, hantavirus… you live in a charmed area no doubt

watwut 3y ago

This is just not true dude. Life people died in all age from all kind of curable issues. Mortality of women during child birth is massively lower. That is the most apparently obvious one. Whole classes of diseases from malnutrition are down or don't exists or are fixable (anemia, lack of iodine, that sort of thing). Tuberculosis was frequent enough to have sanatorium specializing in that. Lepra. When you read history of epidemics, of food and generally of medicine you find a lot of premature deaths that just don't happen now.

Amezarak 3y ago
> Life people died in all age from all kind of curable issues. Sure, absolutely. Just not in large enough numbers to drag the numbers down lower than today [after age 5], when we've dramatically increased the number of deaths due to preventable issues. For example, heart disease was much rarer, and cancer incidence was less than 10% of today's numbers. Fewer people died in car accidents, and fewer were shot by AR15s. The causes shifted around. We made medical progress, but we took steps back as well. As I also mentioned, there've been peaks and troughs. As the paper I cited mentions, health became so bad after the mid-1800s peak, by the late 1800s and early 1900s, the British army had to lower its height requirements to absurd levels because of malnutrition - malnutrition that was a direct consequence of technological advancement!