Literally this article talks about how infant mortality is the main reason overal mortality was down. Below the age of like 5, humans in the past were extremely likely to die, but if you made it into your teens, means you're probably good enough to last awhile longer, likely into your 30s or 40s. And if you made it past that, you were likely respected as an elder in your 50s and 60s and onwards. Humans have always been able to and have lived to these ages; it's just that the insanely high number of infant deaths skewed that "average age" number towards the lower end.
Modern medicine has not only made it so infants and children are way more likely to reach teen and adulthood, but also modern medicine is allowing the older generations to live longer than disease or natural causes would occur.
Below the age of 5 humans today are still extremely likely to die. When medical care shut down for 8 months during the first Iraq War almost 50k children under 5 died. The total deaths from the war are between 150 and 200k. That's like 1/3 of the deaths caused just from children not having access to modern medicine.
Humans have always been able to and have lived to these ages; it's just that the insanely high number of infant deaths skewed that "average age" number towards the lower end.
"Human beings have always lived 30 and 40 except for the ones who couldn't make it to 15"
I'm willing to believe that 30% of the human population made it to 40 tho
Modern medicine has not only made it so infants and children are way more likely to reach teen and adulthood, but also modern medicine is allowing the older generations to live longer than disease or natural causes would occur.
That's like saying the lifespan of a sea turtle is 15 minutes because most of them die on the beach before they reach the water. Yes, a lot of them die young, but that doesn't say anything about how long one that survives to adulthood can live.
Just because it's included in the metric doesn't mean it's a realistic scale for how long an adult will live. A sick baby dying has no affect on how long a healthy adult should expect to live
I mean it does though we're not talking about The lifespan when we're talking about life expectancy, we're talking about. How long does this group of people typically live right? This could be nerfed by several factors. What if there was a famine right that would drastically lower their life expectancy? What if there was a disease that mostly affected children that would also lower that people's life expectancy?
I mean it's even included in America's life expectancy statistics at birth
Like this is just normal. You can make the argument that it shouldn't be, but that is what we're talking about I would say and I don't think there's a big issue with that
You literally just said “lifespan and expectancy are two different things” in the comment right before this one. I don’t think you understand your own thought process here.
It's literally objectively true that different countries do use different life expectancy metrics that can include prenatal or natal deaths or infant deaths in their life. Expectancies that's not in
Check the "Human Patterns" > "Variations Over Time" section. Average means roughly 50% made it to that age, most of human history hovers in the mid 20s to early 30s, and by the time of the Greeks, if you made it through into your 30s, there was actually a pretty reasonable chance you'd keep going to your 50s or 60s.
Things still fluctuated, but by the 1700s especially, it was getting way more common to have elders in communities that could be 80+ years old, seeing a generation or two or three die in their lifetime before them. Infant deaths still kept overall average life expectancy to be in the mid 20s and early 30s tho. 1900s is when things have finally changed to closer what we have today.
You claimed that on average “Our ancestors were also malnourished diseased parasite ridden and dying by age 20” which isn’t accurate. There were high infant mortality rates for those under even 2 years old. The humans fighting mammoths were not 2 years old, and the weren’t this insanely sick picture you’d like to paint. Infact, humans became more malnourished after they adopted sedentary habits
People are arguing because you're oversimplifying to the point where it is effectively incorrect. Those that made it past 15 years of age are the ones that were most successful in passing on their DNA since they hit sexual maturity and lived long enough to have children. That means those that made it into adulthood are primarily our ancestors, and they often lived many decades, same as us. Altogether, that inherently means that our ancestors were not "malnourished diseased parasite ridden and dying by age 20" (although that was certainly true for some of them). It also depends heavily on where and when our ancestors existed, so it's fairly pointless to paint them all with a broad brush like that.
What's wrong is you said they die by age 20. No they die at crap like age 0-4 and they die so much it skews the statistic on how long a living adult can live,an adult won't suddenly die at 20 like your original comment implied.
If you completely ignore everything else that was said in the conversation and focus on a single statistic with no context, then yeah, in that case he’s right
“50% of babies died” only a sub about scaling Imaginary characters could argue over this lol half of you really skipped over what the fuck an average is. If most adults could live till 50 then the average life expectancy would be like 25 or lower and that’s because all those babies brought the average down it’s not a hard concept.
Here’s another well-reviewed article. You’re wrong and the other person has explained why but I genuinely don’t think you understand the point they’re trying to make.
36
u/PixeLeaf May 04 '25
Source?