Well, yes and no. That we live longer than our ancestors seems obvious and is a very common belief.
And average life expectancy has indeed increased.
But it really isn’t that clear cut.
For example: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-anc...
Then again, I'd rather be young for 50 years than old for 70.
Although the max age hasn't increased, the proportion of people who reach it has.
We have tech community (some of them YC alumni) delivering essential equipment (trucks, generators) to the chrisis zone for example. Today west seems to be already tired of the news and this is exactly what the conflict starter counts on.
Humans got frequently born with disabilities because malnutrition in pregnancy (like a lack of iodine) that just don't happen anymore in West.
There were whole classes of these issues that killed people and just don't exist anymore.
Actually even now these early years are most risky ones, just the scale is different. Now I have witnesses bias here also - in my 40ies I can expect to live 50 years more, very different from a newborn with immediate terminal condition. So lifespan does have different meaning for us.
> Actually even now these early years are most risky ones, just the scale is different.
Babies mortality used to be huge too. And maternal mortality used to be huge by our standards too.
Why do people so aggressively deny that things have been getting better in the past 100 years?
In the meantime, I will gladly point out that anyone who actually read said garbage article couldn’t have helped but notice how the author, very quickly establishes the difference between life expectancy and lifespan, before also pointing out how the data presents multiple huge biases.