4 ms·

and we're just soooo much smarter nowadays than we were 1000 years ago...

by aero-deck 3y ago

burke 3y ago
I mean the average lifespan in the year 1000 was about 31, so we’re doing at least a few things right.
- Night_Thastus 3y ago
  Isn't that average lifespan? There was a lot of death either in childbirth or during early childhood years. If you filter that data out a bit, adults lived a more comparable age. Still not as good as today, but not 31.
  - Tenoke 3y ago
    >Excluding child mortality, the average life expectancy during the 12th–19th centuries was approximately 55 years So still worse by whole decades than now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#:~:text=Excluding%20child%20mortality%2C%20the%20average,of%20only%2025%E2%80%9340%20years https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#:~:text=Excl....
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      Yes, although lots of places (mainly in Africa) have average life spans in the 50s. https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php#by-population https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php#by-population
  - tomgp 3y ago
    TBH I'm not sure the argument that only women and those under 5 were dying young in large numbers is a great rebuttal to the idea that we were better off in 1023.
    - Night_Thastus 3y ago
      I wasn't arguing that. Of course medical tech is better now. I was saying 31 is just not a good number to claim for that time period.
    - jazzabeanie 3y ago
      Lifespans got worse before they got better. Better to reference 10,000BC than 1023AD, and that’s not so clear.
- albrewer 3y ago
  From what I've read, if you filter out children under 5 in that statistic people lived into their early 60's pretty regularly.
  - Tade0 3y ago
    High child mortality is still a bad thing.
    - albrewer 3y ago
      Not saying it's not, but the implication that everyone was dying at 30 isn't true.
      - Tade0 3y ago
        That's not what's implied. Only thing that was said was that the average lifespan was 31. Could be any curve under that number, but it's bad however you cut it.
  - euroderf 3y ago
    Yes. Stats about average lifetimes are quite misleading & useless until you filter out child mortality.
- dekhn 3y ago
  that's dominated by child mortality; people who survived to teen years typically lived much longer than 31
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- aero-deck 3y ago
  all the correct observations about averages aside, quantity!=quality

and we're just soooo much smarter nowadays than we were 1000 years ago...

burke 3y ago

I mean the average lifespan in the year 1000 was about 31, so we’re doing at least a few things right.

Night_Thastus 3y ago
Isn't that average lifespan? There was a lot of death either in childbirth or during early childhood years. If you filter that data out a bit, adults lived a more comparable age. Still not as good as today, but not 31.
- Tenoke 3y ago
  >Excluding child mortality, the average life expectancy during the 12th–19th centuries was approximately 55 years So still worse by whole decades than now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#:~:text=Excluding%20child%20mortality%2C%20the%20average,of%20only%2025%E2%80%9340%20years https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#:~:text=Excl....
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    Yes, although lots of places (mainly in Africa) have average life spans in the 50s. https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php#by-population https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php#by-population
- tomgp 3y ago
  TBH I'm not sure the argument that only women and those under 5 were dying young in large numbers is a great rebuttal to the idea that we were better off in 1023.
  - Night_Thastus 3y ago
    I wasn't arguing that. Of course medical tech is better now. I was saying 31 is just not a good number to claim for that time period.
  - jazzabeanie 3y ago
    Lifespans got worse before they got better. Better to reference 10,000BC than 1023AD, and that’s not so clear.
albrewer 3y ago
From what I've read, if you filter out children under 5 in that statistic people lived into their early 60's pretty regularly.
- Tade0 3y ago
  High child mortality is still a bad thing.
  - albrewer 3y ago
    Not saying it's not, but the implication that everyone was dying at 30 isn't true.
    - Tade0 3y ago
      That's not what's implied. Only thing that was said was that the average lifespan was 31. Could be any curve under that number, but it's bad however you cut it.
- euroderf 3y ago
  Yes. Stats about average lifetimes are quite misleading & useless until you filter out child mortality.
dekhn 3y ago
that's dominated by child mortality; people who survived to teen years typically lived much longer than 31
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aero-deck 3y ago
all the correct observations about averages aside, quantity!=quality