• @mriormro
    link
    11
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Right and the lack of medical intervention meant that most people didn’t make it past 40.

    People often lived well into their old age if they survived past their childhood. For instance, the average life expectancy during the Victorian era was about 73-75. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1258/jrsm.2008.08k037).

    The average pre-industrial lifespan was around 40 but is skewed due to incredibly high child mortality rates. Wherein roughly a third didn’t survive their first year and almost half didn’t survive their second year (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812001237#s0015).

    • @Coreidan
      link
      English
      -13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re cherry picking. Go back farther in time. The farther back you look the higher the mortality rates.

      The point is on average life expectancy has increased. It scales with technology.

      The fact that you’re even arguing this is ridiculous.

      Do you know WHY so many people died giving birth? Do you know why so many people died in childhood? Medical technology. It’s not a mystery dude. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/excavations-reveal-daily-life-of-10000-years-ago-30504#

      Most of the skeletons found in graves at Aşıklıhöyük belong to women and children, Özbaşaran said. “It is interesting that there was a high number of deaths among children and women. Probably many deaths occurred during birth. Epidemic diseases were also prevalent. We determined that the average age of death was between 25 and 30 in Aşıklıhöyük, which is very young. A man who died between the ages of 45 and 50 had one of the longest lives.”

      • @mriormro
        link
        10
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re cherry picking. Go back farther in time. The farther back you look the higher the mortality rates.

        I… I’ve literally provided you with cited sources that also have further sources. Would you like me to gather all available studies on this subject for you?

        The fact that you’re even arguing this is ridiculous

        I’m not arguing anything. I’m trying to present you with new, relevant information concerning your initial statement since it’s a widely spread bit of pop science that’s been corrected updated.

        • @Coreidan
          link
          English
          -12
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re trying to convince me that life expectancy hasn’t changed at all in the last 20,000 years. As if our medical break throughs have zero impact.

          Are you high?

          Stop.

          • @mriormro
            link
            101 year ago

            Again, not trying to convince you of anything. The cited sources are thorough and well articulated. I encourage you to give them a read if you’d like to become better acquainted with more contemporary findings on the lifespans of our ancestors.

            Take care.

            • @Coreidan
              link
              English
              -131 year ago

              Uh huh. Whatever you say.

              • Pepsi
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                “Im not just gonna READ some STUDY when I know SCIENCE, idiot!”

                • @Coreidan
                  link
                  English
                  0
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Imagine thinking studies are always accurate and don’t have flaws. It’s ONE study little guy.

                  Try working on your critical thinking skills since you suck at it.

                  Wow you sure got me there bud. ROFL.