• SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    19 hours ago

    That’s not actually true. People died of a variety of infections and disease we treat easily today, many people were malnourished. The two big historical boosts in lifespan were after antibiotic discovery, insulin, and GPCR cardiac meds.

    No, people did not life longer before 1900.

    • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Mid-adult deaths dragged down the average. Child deaths really dragged down the average. The point is that the interpretation of “40 year life expectancy” is caused by misunderstanding averages, not from some massively inferior physiology of prior humans. Yes, more things readily killed you, but it wasn’t a mid-life ticking time bomb. Excluding infant death bumps expectancy up around 10-20 years

      • williams_482@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        A bit of column A, a bit of column B.

        Yes, 50% child mortality skews life expectancy statistics heavily, but any 40 year life expectancy estimate is clearly filtering out at least some portion of childhood deaths. By our best estimates: of the 48% of people who survived age 10, slightly less than half were dead by 45. Of those who clear 45, less than half reach 65.

        Those early deaths aren’t driven by “inferior physiology”, but disease and malnourishment (as the previous commenter noted). It was possible to live into your 80s, but you had to be very, very lucky to pull it off.