this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2026
65 points (98.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

38148 readers
1091 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 76 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Average life spans. People in ancient times didn't drop dead at forty. They regularly lived to be advanced ages we would consider normal. It's just that infant and young child deaths were so common it really drags down the average.

[–] tangible@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago

Also a horrific amount of mothers dying in childbirth didn't do wonders for the average.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

That's not actually true. People died of a variety of infections and disease we treat easily today, many people were malnourished. The 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 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 1 points 20 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.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This is just the typical modern misunderstanding of statistics.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

To be fair, I doubt people understood statistics much better back in the day, either.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

And there were poor or no records of birth, they guessed at people's age of death.

[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I was thinking that when I wrote it.

But there is more people now. So more people to misunderstand it :-)

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So common as in literally half of kids died.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Which is how evolution worked, those with diseases like diabetes etc (mutations thay arent beneficial) died and didn't pass that gene on.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I mean, there was a selectivity to it, yes. But also a whole lot of random chance, which is why it kept happening instead of fixing itself in a few generations.

It's still how it works. We're either going to artificially fix the problems or go back to that, and do so in an evolutionary eye blink - almost certainly in our lifetimes, by the look of it.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Also wrong. WTAF this thread. Lemmy just loves to make up science.

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

This is the biggest historical misconception. So much dumb stuff like "horribke histories" (children's history books + tv show in britain) heavily reinforced this misconception

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

also infections too. only the fat kings lived to things like 50-70s.