• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    224 months ago

    Pretty sure that “dead by 50 thing” includes all the infant mortality.

    I bet he’s also using the stats from peak mortality of European late middle ages with urbanisation but no good sewers.

    • @IMongoose
      link
      English
      104 months ago

      50 actually seemed about right for me excluding infants so I looked it up.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/

      That study looks at lifespan after reaching 5, and 50 might still be a little generous with the care that humans could provide each other 50,000 years ago. 50 is about the lifespan of a king 3,000 years ago, I can’t imagine gen pop faired better.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        It’s also a sample size of 15 all “King’s of Judah” which is already urbanised.

        But it’s good to see some decent data. It’s a nice irregular line from there on, and women do gain a lot more improvement than men.

        I wish I had access to scholarly journals still to do my own research, but I don’t so I’ll defer to your stuff for now. Thanks.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Me too. We have plenty of bones of people who lived into old age with signs of disability or having been crippled.

        But the overall stats not only do I not know, but since we only have a relatively minor number of data points it’s hard to really say any of us will ever know.

        What we have does tend to point to being better than a medieval city iirc, and I think the general consensus amongst anthropologists is that the transition to agriculture saw a decrease in life expectancy.