Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

> early humans that managed to survive childhood most likely had generally pleasant lives

Well, of course: they'd never live long enough to become weak, whiny, and regretful.

One idea put forth in Civilized to Death is that this sentiment is a mis-meme stemming from the common knowledge that average life spans have increased in modern times.

That while, sure, the average has gone up, this is primarily due to decreases in infant mortality rates. So there’s a plethora of zeros skewing down the average for “back then”.

That is, if you survived through childhood back then, you’d likely expect to live just about as long as everyone today.

Yep. Averages don't tell you much unless you know the shape of the distribution.

> That is, if you survived through childhood back then, you’d likely expect to live just about as long as everyone today.

Somehow I doubt that very much. I grew up in an emerging economy. Between the last few decades, life expectancy at birth went up from mid 50s to high 60s. Infant mortality went down, but not enough to cause the rise in life expectancy.

Anecdotally, I know most of my immediate family didn't make it past 70, but that's changing now. Relatively simple to treat chronic diseases such as cardiac issues and diabetes got them.

I’m not arguing one way or another, these are all very broad claims in both directions.

But if you’re interested, that books also speculates that many such health issues, including the above, are relatively recent human ailments brought on by the modern diet facilitated by agriculture.

I’d wonder if that’s orthogonal to the issue at hand though - Native American tribes experienced a glut of such diseases when they began transitioning onto anglo-Saxon style diets. We know that many communities across the world nowadays achieve advanced years by having simple diets and strong communities, and hunter-gatherers had that + rigorous exercise. As another comment on this page states, the typical hunter-gatherer was leagues more physically fit than the average person today.

As a counterpoint, the industrial revolution drastically dropped urban life expectancies.

I had recently read a book about the 1918 flu, and it had made the point that these urban cities, at the time, required a constant influx of workers, just to replace those deceased.

So, to actually increase the labor pool, required a tremendous amount of human life.

I suspect the higher disease loads and lower fertility rate had a lot to do with that. But maybe not that things were better in rural villages either. Considering all of history rural areas had higher but the population wasn't increasing very fast. That is until you had mechanized farming.

I’ve read the same thing about Ancient Rome. It required a high influx of people because life expectancy in the city was so short.

In visits to a number of developing countries I’ve made the same observation: driving from the wealthy, developed part where we were staying, out of the city and into the countryside I’d notice that the very worst poverty seemed to be not in the (technically poorest) countryside where the old, rural life still went on, but on the edges of modernity. The people at the edges of the city had left behind the benefits of the traditional way of life — being self-sustainable, ok nutrition, good air etc. — and were really only experiencing the drawbacks of modern life; few of the benefits.

It’s only a personal observation, but in my reading of history I wonder if the same pattern applies.

I remember as a child an elderly relative of mine talked about how there were no restaurants in his day, and I just assumed that restaurants hadn't reached his part of the world until recently. It turns out some of the world's oldest restaurants are from his part of the world, and that he simply grew up during a very unstable time. Your experience may be similar to his.

If you're talking up to a couple thousands years ago (Medieval up to Roman times), it was possible to live pretty long if you were wealthy enough to afford food and shelter. For reference many well known greek writers reached 70+.

If you're talking prehistoric times, the food supply was very limited with no agriculture and no trade. You'd die of food shortage sooner rather than later, physically unable to hunt or to keep up with the nomadic tribe.

That is assuming that one didn't die because of war or disease. Most infections meant certain death with no antibiotics.

The decline in infant mortality had a huge effect, but more people today are living to their 70s and 80s than most of human history.

People definitely lived into their 60s - 80s centuries ago, but they also used to die a lot more often from infections, disease, accidents etc. Public health infrastructure (clean water and sewage), antibiotics, vaccines and drugs like statins have all helped a lot.

Here's a fascinating chart on date of death of US women in 1933 vs. 2014. The distribution of age at death is narrowing, and more women are making it to old age: https://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/127460_...

Maximum life expectancy though, has unfortunately remained extremely steady. It is very unlikely that anyone reading this will live past 105 without a massive tech breakthrough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com