3 ms·

>our ancestors died extremely early No they didn't, stop using averages.

karafso 1y 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... Childhood mortality is only one factor, and I think at this point we're all aware that the "life expectancy was 40 years" statistic has a huge asterisk next to it. But yes, our ancestors really did die much, much younger than us.
- keybored 1y ago
  > Childhood mortality is only one factor, and I think at this point we're all aware that the "life expectancy was 40 years" statistic has a huge asterisk next to it. No, people who say that they “died extremely early relative to modern humans” mean the bunk dying at 40 due to old age myth. Not dying at 65 rather than 80. Your link seems to show graphs going up but not why.[1] The medical breakthroughs have been, like first of discovering hygiene, vaccines and antibiotics. Which does exactly nothing to debunk what the OP[2] called “appeal to ancestry fallacy”. That we know medicine now (like hygiene, antiobitics) do not discredit claims like, you should eat like a hunter-gatherer or something like that. [1] This seems typical of “data” outlets. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44078093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44078093
- antonvs 1y ago
  You're still focusing on averages, which is the error inherent in the myth. While it's true that average life expectancy has increased, the point is that it was absolutely routine for people to live into their 60s, and not uncommon for them to live into their 70s or 80s. See e.g. https://www.sapiens.org/biology/human-lifespan-history/ https://www.sapiens.org/biology/human-lifespan-history/
  - eloisant 1y ago
    The average still means something. Yes a lot of people were living to 60s, 70s or 80s, but way more people than today were dying at a younger age because of a disease that can now be cured, hygiene not as good, etc.

https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortality-life-expectancy-improved-at-all-ages https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit... Childhood mortality is only one factor, and I think at this point we're all aware that the "life expectancy was 40 years" statistic has a huge asterisk next to it. But yes, our ancestors really did die much, much younger than us.

keybored 1y ago
> Childhood mortality is only one factor, and I think at this point we're all aware that the "life expectancy was 40 years" statistic has a huge asterisk next to it. No, people who say that they “died extremely early relative to modern humans” mean the bunk dying at 40 due to old age myth. Not dying at 65 rather than 80. Your link seems to show graphs going up but not why.[1] The medical breakthroughs have been, like first of discovering hygiene, vaccines and antibiotics. Which does exactly nothing to debunk what the OP[2] called “appeal to ancestry fallacy”. That we know medicine now (like hygiene, antiobitics) do not discredit claims like, you should eat like a hunter-gatherer or something like that. [1] This seems typical of “data” outlets. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44078093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44078093
antonvs 1y ago
You're still focusing on averages, which is the error inherent in the myth. While it's true that average life expectancy has increased, the point is that it was absolutely routine for people to live into their 60s, and not uncommon for them to live into their 70s or 80s. See e.g. https://www.sapiens.org/biology/human-lifespan-history/ https://www.sapiens.org/biology/human-lifespan-history/
- eloisant 1y ago
  The average still means something. Yes a lot of people were living to 60s, 70s or 80s, but way more people than today were dying at a younger age because of a disease that can now be cured, hygiene not as good, etc.