3 ms·

Wouldn’t modern medicine would be considered “radical life-extending technology” to people living 200 years ago? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/li

Wouldn’t modern medicine would be considered “radical life-extending technology” to people living 200 years ago? https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-...

Contusion3532 3y ago
AFAIK, it's a bit misleading. Much of that increase is due to a decrease in infant mortality and childhood related illnesses.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ChatGTP 3y ago
I wonder if this would be true in all cultures though? Australian Aboriginals lives incredibly healthy lifestyles and had access to an abundance of incredible foods. I don't know if they'd live as long as people today but I'd be surprised if many didn't at least go till at least 70+?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Most adults lived to about 60 in most places and times. 70+ is not noteworthy.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "Most adults lived to about 60 in most places and times." Medieval European burials at least tend to cluster way lower than that. In the Dark Ages, skeletons of people older than 60 are rather uncommon (like 1:30), in the High Middle Ages, they become somewhat more common, but still less than 1:10. Of all the population groups, the clergy was by far the most long-lived in pre-modern times. A nonviolent line of work, plus almost guaranteed supply of food. Even in the 18th century in fairly developed Britain, only about 70 per cent of adults (18+) celebrated their 40th birthday.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      If 70% of 18 year olds make it to 40, then so long as 5/7 of them can survive another 20ish years, you have “most” people making it to 60. If we’re cool with a +/- 5 years on the “about 60” figure I think this tracks just fine.
      - inglor_cz 3y ago
        Nevertheless, that was the 18th century in industrializing Britain, which was becoming a lot more efficient at agriculture etc. From many aspects, it was already a fairly modern society, with an emerging literate middle class etc. Even then the mortality was still quite high compared to today. And most agricultural societies before that were regularly swept by famines, which disproportionately took the young and the aging ones. When judging historic lifespans, we tend to judge by the famous people. Cardinals, popes, kings, emperors. The population average was way, way lower, and the bones from churchyards tell the real story.
        jncfhnb 3y ago
        I’m judging by just glossing through some tables of data. The median death for 25 year olds was about 58 in Ancient Rome for example
        inglor_cz 3y ago
        Surviving death records from Ancient Rome are far from representative. Contemporary record keepers were mostly interested in heads of households, and not, say, slaves. So this again skews the statistics towards richer and more influential people. Also, Rome itself (as a city) had never problem supplying its population with food. There was a special office (Cura Annonae) that coordinated import of food from Hispania, Africa and Egypt to Rome so that the city was never threatened with starvation. I just recently visited Ostia Antica, the main port of Ancient Rome; it was absolutely massive. Rome certainly had a lot of problems, but it was fairly secure in food. Things were different in 11th century Germany or Sweden. Without an extensive network of long-distance trade, if crop failed in your region, there wasn't any way to prevent famine. Even deep in the 18th century, during the last peacetime famine in Czechia (1770-3 approx., caused by rainy and cold weather), the attempts to alleviate the hunger by importing food from Hungary were only partly successful; even though by that time, the road network was fairly developed and the state capacity was orders of magnitude higher than several centuries ago. As a result, something between 5 and 10 per cent of the population died.
BurningFrog 3y ago
Modern medicine is a relatively small factor for increased life spans.

Contusion3532 3y ago

AFAIK, it's a bit misleading. Much of that increase is due to a decrease in infant mortality and childhood related illnesses.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ChatGTP 3y ago

I wonder if this would be true in all cultures though? Australian Aboriginals lives incredibly healthy lifestyles and had access to an abundance of incredible foods. I don't know if they'd live as long as people today but I'd be surprised if many didn't at least go till at least 70+?

jncfhnb 3y ago
Most adults lived to about 60 in most places and times. 70+ is not noteworthy.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "Most adults lived to about 60 in most places and times." Medieval European burials at least tend to cluster way lower than that. In the Dark Ages, skeletons of people older than 60 are rather uncommon (like 1:30), in the High Middle Ages, they become somewhat more common, but still less than 1:10. Of all the population groups, the clergy was by far the most long-lived in pre-modern times. A nonviolent line of work, plus almost guaranteed supply of food. Even in the 18th century in fairly developed Britain, only about 70 per cent of adults (18+) celebrated their 40th birthday.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    If 70% of 18 year olds make it to 40, then so long as 5/7 of them can survive another 20ish years, you have “most” people making it to 60. If we’re cool with a +/- 5 years on the “about 60” figure I think this tracks just fine.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Nevertheless, that was the 18th century in industrializing Britain, which was becoming a lot more efficient at agriculture etc. From many aspects, it was already a fairly modern society, with an emerging literate middle class etc. Even then the mortality was still quite high compared to today. And most agricultural societies before that were regularly swept by famines, which disproportionately took the young and the aging ones. When judging historic lifespans, we tend to judge by the famous people. Cardinals, popes, kings, emperors. The population average was way, way lower, and the bones from churchyards tell the real story.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        I’m judging by just glossing through some tables of data. The median death for 25 year olds was about 58 in Ancient Rome for example
        inglor_cz 3y ago
        Surviving death records from Ancient Rome are far from representative. Contemporary record keepers were mostly interested in heads of households, and not, say, slaves. So this again skews the statistics towards richer and more influential people. Also, Rome itself (as a city) had never problem supplying its population with food. There was a special office (Cura Annonae) that coordinated import of food from Hispania, Africa and Egypt to Rome so that the city was never threatened with starvation. I just recently visited Ostia Antica, the main port of Ancient Rome; it was absolutely massive. Rome certainly had a lot of problems, but it was fairly secure in food. Things were different in 11th century Germany or Sweden. Without an extensive network of long-distance trade, if crop failed in your region, there wasn't any way to prevent famine. Even deep in the 18th century, during the last peacetime famine in Czechia (1770-3 approx., caused by rainy and cold weather), the attempts to alleviate the hunger by importing food from Hungary were only partly successful; even though by that time, the road network was fairly developed and the state capacity was orders of magnitude higher than several centuries ago. As a result, something between 5 and 10 per cent of the population died.

BurningFrog 3y ago

Modern medicine is a relatively small factor for increased life spans.