war >he doesn't know that war was an exclusive thing for royals/warrior class people before the French revolution
yeah, losses were always minimal until protestants and other "average" people were convinced to fight in wars for their israeli masters instead of giving a little bread every year to your king to get protection
>No, they wouldn't count the dead kid.
When they first started to calculate the average life expectancy that's exactly what they did though. That's how statistics work
>Only the healthiest fittest babies made it out of childhood
Yeah what an accurate representation of health when you not only have to win the genetic lottery for social reasons, but just to fricking make it past your first birthday. Look up survivorship bias. You could say birthrates were artificially raised for the same reason you're saying they are lower just because of the genes of the people you were counting.
Yet another troonoid lolcow dunning kruger namegay.
Life expectancy measures the probability of death, it doesn't matter if people back than lived a million years if most still died during childhood or at their 30.
Urine an idiot. Go and look up how they calculate it ffs, yes, they do count the dead kids. You are pulling shit outta your ass.
Reality is that the lord of fief didn't care if some baby peasants died before they did census.
It's literally on wiki, too: >Based on Early and Middle Bronze Age data, life expectancy at age 15 would be 28–36 years. >Based on Athens Agora and Corinth data, life expectancy at age 15 would be 37–41 years. >A Gaulish boy surviving to age 20 might expect to live 25 more years, while a woman at age 20 could normally expect about 17 more years.
Since we're ranting: a couple years ago they found cavemen skeletons who after analysis turned out to be 50-60 but the interesting part was these people had probably lived with disabilities for a large part (broken leg that never fully healed) or in some cases their entire lives, this pretty much destroyed the whole ''cavemen left the weak/wounded by the side of the road for lions'' narrative which is so funny to me, leave it up to scientists to discover the shocking fact that humans have empathy and just like modern ones, would probably be okay with making their own lives harder to preserve those of their loved ones >assume cavemen probably cared for their families/friends and wouldn't just go ''leg's broken, lion food'' >scientists literally screech and go: SOURCE, WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE????
>assume cavemen probably cared for their families/friends and wouldn't just go ''leg's broken, lion food'' >scientists literally screech and go: SOURCE, WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE????
You assume every single scientist is a monolith for some brainlet reason. Majority of people studying this has never ever said that "cavemen" didn't care for their families/friends. You're so moronic, keep up with the times.
He's right though. This is an issue that'll keep repeating itself. They've been trying to claim humans didn't hunt mammoths into extinction for decades now despite all evidence clearly showing that we did.
>He's right though
No. In the 1800s some racists though so because they looked at themselves (aka us) as superior to uncivilized cavemen. Today we know how wrong they were though, it's widely known and accepted that we've cared for each other for a good while now, no well respected person studying the matter is gonna deny it. >This is an issue that'll keep repeating itself
I mean yeah that's how research works. You go with what you have until new research either disproves or strengthen the claim. >They've been trying to claim humans didn't hunt mammoths into extinction for decades now despite all evidence clearly showing that we did.
Not what we talked about at all but ok. Again, people researching this aren't a monolith. There's always gonna be a minority talking against what the majority has researched and found out. That's life.
You're clearly a fricking moron. Tribal hunter gatherers still exist to this day (shocking) and their average lifespans even without modern medicine and hospitals are about the same as western 1st world countries.
Even if you account for child mortality it's obvious that these average lifespan stats of history are made up because they simply don't align with what we see in reality. People living in nature rarely have their infants die from random shit and don't start dropping like flies past the age of 20. They live well into their 60s and 70s even without modern medicine.
>average lifespan stats of history are made up >>what we see in reality
*makes up his opinion based on some pop-sci show instead*
Yeah, that sounds more realistic.
You can just go to Africa and meet the tribal people if you're really a seeker of truth. Them living well into their 60s without the need for modern medicine is no secret. They even remain physically healthier at those ages than 1st worlders.
>you have to prove my point for me
But there's no point to prove? It's just reality.
It's like how I don't have to prove to you that grass is green. I can tell you to go outside and check it out for yourself but regardless of what you believe the grass will still be green. Your ignorance doesn't change reality.
even if like 30 was the true average, wouldn't constant war (even if just a small scale territorial thing) be a huge influence on that? I'd imagine grown men were constantly in a sort of militia with their tribe
>no steady protein AND carb source >no shelter/heating in winter
these are the only things man needs, we need to go back in some aspects but retain the essential technology for an easy life, so we can impose the challenges on ourselves instead of nature being the one to do it
uh yea you guys are forgetting one big thing about living about then. women back then were nasty. they looked worse than the women in fricking national geographic. you want to bang national geographic b***hes? thats disgusting
Stupid picture.
A generation of children are born.
3/5 die early in life >dead by age 35
More like most die at 5-10 years old. the ones who survive live to be 60-70.
People somehow forgot that a little over a century ago infant mortality was more rule than an exception. My grandparents lost many siblings who died before they reached the age of 4.
My grandfather grew up in rural germany during WWI
His family quite literally had 5 children and only two survived.
War didn't help and my granduncle died also.
Humans quite literally lived longer back in the day because of no pollution, the problem was everything that would actually kill you. Which was a lot of things.
life expectancy has increased most for infants but gains are seen across all ages. If you are 20 now, you will likely live way longer than average hunter gatherer
>no access to medicine >no one knows how to cure anything >bunch of wild animals can eat you >have to actually to dangerous stuff to survive
of course the mortality rate is high as frick
>>no access to medicine >>no one knows how to cure anything
Funny thing is thats probably why so many predatory animals can be scared of by making yourself big/shouting, they know if prey animals fight back it can wound them, even if they catch/kill said prey it might wound them in such a way that'll never cure and eventually kill them so if prey animals seem like more trouble than they're worth (like a pack of humans with spears and torches) lions will just frick off
>assume cavemen probably cared for their families/friends and wouldn't just go ''leg's broken, lion food'' >scientists literally screech and go: SOURCE, WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE????
You assume every single scientist is a monolith for some brainlet reason. Majority of people studying this has never ever said that "cavemen" didn't care for their families/friends. You're so moronic, keep up with the times.
>keep up with the times
Thats literally what I was told by people in said fields like 5-10 years ago, hell some people still say it today, it's what all academics do >hurr people before were such idiots >we're so enlightened compared to any other time period
This isnt even something new like
He's right though. This is an issue that'll keep repeating itself. They've been trying to claim humans didn't hunt mammoths into extinction for decades now despite all evidence clearly showing that we did.
said, medieval doctors thought they were geniuses for prescribing leeches in comparison to the primitive ancient greeks, in 1000 or so years academia's gonna call us all morons for not perfecting fusion power or some shit, to give you another example whenever they find the graves of dogs or cats with what appear to be toys there's articles about the groundbreaking discovery that humanity before the year 2000 was somehow able to care for a species it'd grown and evolved alongside
Lions are our prey. So are wolves and bears. In Europe we hunted wolves and bears to extinction basically with cave bears going completely extinct due to overhunting.
Bears aren't even anywhere close to being as dangerous as the most dangerous things we hunted.
>dead by 35
Yet another moron who doesn't understand how child mortality skews lifespan statistics
Based. I am always triggered when people say hurr in da middle ages, 35 was considered an old man durrr
>implying they counted children in mortality rates
What does this even mean? If 2 brothers were born, one died at birth, the other lived to be 100, they would class that as an average lifespan of 50.
Does this mean the average lifespan was 50? No, of course not.
No, they wouldn't count the dead kid.
There's plenty of reasons people could die to average at 35 (war, famine, ilnesses, infections, murders)
>No, they wouldn't count the dead kid.
Urine an idiot. Go and look up how they calculate it ffs, yes, they do count the dead kids. You are pulling shit outta your ass.
war
>he doesn't know that war was an exclusive thing for royals/warrior class people before the French revolution
yeah, losses were always minimal until protestants and other "average" people were convinced to fight in wars for their israeli masters instead of giving a little bread every year to your king to get protection
>No, they wouldn't count the dead kid.
When they first started to calculate the average life expectancy that's exactly what they did though. That's how statistics work
Yes they would you absolute dimwit.
Average lifespan literally means the age when 50% of people have died.
>Only the healthiest fittest babies made it out of childhood
Yeah what an accurate representation of health when you not only have to win the genetic lottery for social reasons, but just to fricking make it past your first birthday. Look up survivorship bias. You could say birthrates were artificially raised for the same reason you're saying they are lower just because of the genes of the people you were counting.
Yet another troonoid lolcow dunning kruger namegay.
Life expectancy measures the probability of death, it doesn't matter if people back than lived a million years if most still died during childhood or at their 30.
Lifespan does not = life expectancy. They're two completely different things.
>actually they believed children weren't people and didn't count them
>they're just like me and the other heckin based users of r/antinatalism
Reality is that the lord of fief didn't care if some baby peasants died before they did census.
It's literally on wiki, too:
>Based on Early and Middle Bronze Age data, life expectancy at age 15 would be 28–36 years.
>Based on Athens Agora and Corinth data, life expectancy at age 15 would be 37–41 years.
>A Gaulish boy surviving to age 20 might expect to live 25 more years, while a woman at age 20 could normally expect about 17 more years.
>inb4 under 20 years is still a child
Trolling is a art
*an
unfathomably moronic
>responding to tripgay
It's just moronic gay right wing emotion. They don't like logic, because it makes their brain hurt.
>dead by age 35
This is the total brainlets misunderstanding of historical average life spans.
No. Old age truly wasn't at 30. You either died as an infant, and if you did not, there was a good chance you lived to 70.
Hell, even the bible, puts the average lifespan as 70.
People who post this do not understand how average lifespans are calculated.
/rant
Since we're ranting: a couple years ago they found cavemen skeletons who after analysis turned out to be 50-60 but the interesting part was these people had probably lived with disabilities for a large part (broken leg that never fully healed) or in some cases their entire lives, this pretty much destroyed the whole ''cavemen left the weak/wounded by the side of the road for lions'' narrative which is so funny to me, leave it up to scientists to discover the shocking fact that humans have empathy and just like modern ones, would probably be okay with making their own lives harder to preserve those of their loved ones
>assume cavemen probably cared for their families/friends and wouldn't just go ''leg's broken, lion food''
>scientists literally screech and go: SOURCE, WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE????
>assume cavemen probably cared for their families/friends and wouldn't just go ''leg's broken, lion food''
>scientists literally screech and go: SOURCE, WHERE'S THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE????
You assume every single scientist is a monolith for some brainlet reason. Majority of people studying this has never ever said that "cavemen" didn't care for their families/friends. You're so moronic, keep up with the times.
He's right though. This is an issue that'll keep repeating itself. They've been trying to claim humans didn't hunt mammoths into extinction for decades now despite all evidence clearly showing that we did.
>He's right though
No. In the 1800s some racists though so because they looked at themselves (aka us) as superior to uncivilized cavemen. Today we know how wrong they were though, it's widely known and accepted that we've cared for each other for a good while now, no well respected person studying the matter is gonna deny it.
>This is an issue that'll keep repeating itself
I mean yeah that's how research works. You go with what you have until new research either disproves or strengthen the claim.
>They've been trying to claim humans didn't hunt mammoths into extinction for decades now despite all evidence clearly showing that we did.
Not what we talked about at all but ok. Again, people researching this aren't a monolith. There's always gonna be a minority talking against what the majority has researched and found out. That's life.
What the frick are you yapping about, moron? Shut the frick up. No one cares about your gay diversity problems. Not relevant.
Well this, and the fact that you were more likely to get killed in pre civilized times, but yes.
Antibiotics are literally the only thing grug needed to live to his 100s.
>He fell for the 30yold lifespan.
NTGMI.
compitas porfa contesten bien si no voy a golpear a mis hijos.
You're clearly a fricking moron. Tribal hunter gatherers still exist to this day (shocking) and their average lifespans even without modern medicine and hospitals are about the same as western 1st world countries.
Even if you account for child mortality it's obvious that these average lifespan stats of history are made up because they simply don't align with what we see in reality. People living in nature rarely have their infants die from random shit and don't start dropping like flies past the age of 20. They live well into their 60s and 70s even without modern medicine.
>average lifespan stats of history are made up
>>what we see in reality
*makes up his opinion based on some pop-sci show instead*
Yeah, that sounds more realistic.
You can just go to Africa and meet the tribal people if you're really a seeker of truth. Them living well into their 60s without the need for modern medicine is no secret. They even remain physically healthier at those ages than 1st worlders.
>you have to prove my point for me
Yeah, right.
Just because there are old people that managed to survive, doesn't mean that the average life expectancy is high.
Nor that they don't receive any help from modern society. It's very naive to think otherwise.
>you have to prove my point for me
But there's no point to prove? It's just reality.
It's like how I don't have to prove to you that grass is green. I can tell you to go outside and check it out for yourself but regardless of what you believe the grass will still be green. Your ignorance doesn't change reality.
Nah.
Khoisan bushmen:
>Life expectancy is estimated between 40 and 50 years. Only 10 percent survive past the age of 60.
even if like 30 was the true average, wouldn't constant war (even if just a small scale territorial thing) be a huge influence on that? I'd imagine grown men were constantly in a sort of militia with their tribe
>no steady protein AND carb source
>no shelter/heating in winter
these are the only things man needs, we need to go back in some aspects but retain the essential technology for an easy life, so we can impose the challenges on ourselves instead of nature being the one to do it
>carb
You misspelled saturated fat
uh yea you guys are forgetting one big thing about living about then. women back then were nasty. they looked worse than the women in fricking national geographic. you want to bang national geographic b***hes? thats disgusting
They were naked all the time tho or wearing skimpy clothes. Good for fricking after hunting
do you know how bad women stink when they don't take showers every day with modern soaps? smells like woodstock shitpit
Most Women to this day still look nasty what are you talking about?
Stupid picture.
A generation of children are born.
3/5 die early in life
>dead by age 35
More like most die at 5-10 years old. the ones who survive live to be 60-70.
People somehow forgot that a little over a century ago infant mortality was more rule than an exception. My grandparents lost many siblings who died before they reached the age of 4.
My grandfather grew up in rural germany during WWI
His family quite literally had 5 children and only two survived.
War didn't help and my granduncle died also.
Humans quite literally lived longer back in the day because of no pollution, the problem was everything that would actually kill you. Which was a lot of things.
life expectancy has increased most for infants but gains are seen across all ages. If you are 20 now, you will likely live way longer than average hunter gatherer
>no access to medicine
>no one knows how to cure anything
>bunch of wild animals can eat you
>have to actually to dangerous stuff to survive
of course the mortality rate is high as frick
>>no access to medicine
>>no one knows how to cure anything
Funny thing is thats probably why so many predatory animals can be scared of by making yourself big/shouting, they know if prey animals fight back it can wound them, even if they catch/kill said prey it might wound them in such a way that'll never cure and eventually kill them so if prey animals seem like more trouble than they're worth (like a pack of humans with spears and torches) lions will just frick off
>keep up with the times
Thats literally what I was told by people in said fields like 5-10 years ago, hell some people still say it today, it's what all academics do
>hurr people before were such idiots
>we're so enlightened compared to any other time period
This isnt even something new like
said, medieval doctors thought they were geniuses for prescribing leeches in comparison to the primitive ancient greeks, in 1000 or so years academia's gonna call us all morons for not perfecting fusion power or some shit, to give you another example whenever they find the graves of dogs or cats with what appear to be toys there's articles about the groundbreaking discovery that humanity before the year 2000 was somehow able to care for a species it'd grown and evolved alongside
Lions are our prey. So are wolves and bears. In Europe we hunted wolves and bears to extinction basically with cave bears going completely extinct due to overhunting.
Bears aren't even anywhere close to being as dangerous as the most dangerous things we hunted.
they had medicine and did surgery with stone tools, just couldn't handle severe things like arterial bleeds
Test