3 ms·

I think the detractors of your comment would have less ground if you compared the life expectancy at 10 yo in Pompeii to that of a 10 yo from, say, 100 years ag

I think the detractors of your comment would have less ground if you compared the life expectancy at 10 yo in Pompeii to that of a 10 yo from, say, 100 years ago, in which case at least I find it surprising that the difference is not far greater.

truculent 3y ago
The Middle Ages is not Rome. I think it’s plausible that Roman society would fare better
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  100 years ago was not the Middle Ages, that ended about 500 years ago. 100 years ago is the late modern period.
  - truculent 3y ago
    I think I replied to the wrong comment. My mistake.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Why? There is evidence suggesting that the number calories available and the general quality of nutrition for median person increased after the collapse of the Roman empire. Both because of a significant decrease in taxation but mostly because the plague, climate change and warfare killed half or so killed half of the people living in Europe at the time. The same thing happened in the 1300s and 1400s as the number of people decreases significantly the quality of life for those who remained increased (more land per capita). Additionally there were significant technological developments during the middle ages which resulted in higher crop yields (especially in northern Europe) (heavy plow, horse collars, wind mills, more water mills, 3 and later 4 field crop rotation, general improvements in metallurgy...
riffraff 3y ago
100 years ago we had barely started doing vaccinations at scale, germ theory was accepted but basically a "modern" theory and surgery was still barely better than the previous millennia. The 20th and 21st century havd been revolutionary from a medical point of view.
- n8henrie 3y ago
  Exactly! Amazing how non-linear the improvements have been. (As context, I'm a US physician.)
pmontra 3y ago
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy Rome was like this: > When infant mortality is factored out (i.e. counting only the 67–75% who survived the first year), life expectancy is around 34–41 more years (i.e. expected to live to 35–42). When child mortality is factored out (i.e. counting only the 55-65% who survived to age 5), life expectancy is around 40–45 (i.e. age 45–50). The ~50% that reached age 10 could also expect to reach ~45-50; at 15 to ~48–54; at 40 to ~60; at 50 to ~64–68; at 60 to ~70–72; at 70 to ~76–77. Early 19th century England > For the 84% who survived the first year (i.e. excluding infant mortality), the average age was ~46–48. If they reached 20, then it was ~60; if 50, then ~70; if 70, then ~80. For a 15-year-old girl it was ~60–65. For the upper-class, LEB rose from ~45 to 50. Less than half of the people born in the mid-19th century made it past their 50th birthday. In contrast, 97% of the people born in 21st century England and Wales can expect to live longer than 50 years.
- n8henrie 3y ago
  Exactly, thank you.

truculent 3y ago

The Middle Ages is not Rome. I think it’s plausible that Roman society would fare better

mcpackieh 3y ago
100 years ago was not the Middle Ages, that ended about 500 years ago. 100 years ago is the late modern period.
- truculent 3y ago
  I think I replied to the wrong comment. My mistake.
qwytw 3y ago
Why? There is evidence suggesting that the number calories available and the general quality of nutrition for median person increased after the collapse of the Roman empire. Both because of a significant decrease in taxation but mostly because the plague, climate change and warfare killed half or so killed half of the people living in Europe at the time. The same thing happened in the 1300s and 1400s as the number of people decreases significantly the quality of life for those who remained increased (more land per capita). Additionally there were significant technological developments during the middle ages which resulted in higher crop yields (especially in northern Europe) (heavy plow, horse collars, wind mills, more water mills, 3 and later 4 field crop rotation, general improvements in metallurgy...

riffraff 3y ago

100 years ago we had barely started doing vaccinations at scale, germ theory was accepted but basically a "modern" theory and surgery was still barely better than the previous millennia. The 20th and 21st century havd been revolutionary from a medical point of view.

n8henrie 3y ago
Exactly! Amazing how non-linear the improvements have been. (As context, I'm a US physician.)

pmontra 3y ago

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy Rome was like this: > When infant mortality is factored out (i.e. counting only the 67–75% who survived the first year), life expectancy is around 34–41 more years (i.e. expected to live to 35–42). When child mortality is factored out (i.e. counting only the 55-65% who survived to age 5), life expectancy is around 40–45 (i.e. age 45–50). The ~50% that reached age 10 could also expect to reach ~45-50; at 15 to ~48–54; at 40 to ~60; at 50 to ~64–68; at 60 to ~70–72; at 70 to ~76–77. Early 19th century England > For the 84% who survived the first year (i.e. excluding infant mortality), the average age was ~46–48. If they reached 20, then it was ~60; if 50, then ~70; if 70, then ~80. For a 15-year-old girl it was ~60–65. For the upper-class, LEB rose from ~45 to 50. Less than half of the people born in the mid-19th century made it past their 50th birthday. In contrast, 97% of the people born in 21st century England and Wales can expect to live longer than 50 years.

n8henrie 3y ago
Exactly, thank you.