Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026
The Marvel of Modern Medicine.
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59313
Nothing so far thank god/fate/the universe. I've been very lucky on that front *touch wood*. NO allergies that I know of and nothing major failed or went gammy. Sure I've had the odd infection over the years, but never took antibiotics for them as luckily they went away on their own. Ive had a fair few stitches over the years, but they had them from way back so... With all that you'd think I'd look like this but I'm more a case of this
That was the biggie in the past. Infant mortality was scarily high. That said, outside the rolling plagues of the middle ages, if you actually made it to 20 and thereafter avoided accident death or war, your chances of hitting 70(if you were male) were pretty good and not that far off the odds today for a 20 year old*. We're much more likely to see 80 plus though. It's remarkable how many famous types from the past got to good ages. EG Michelangelo and Titian were in their late 80's and most of the famous arty types of the time hit 70 plus. In Roman times 70 odd wasn't so unusual. Roman soldiers would recieve a pension and a bit of land to farm after 25 years service, so they were considered still useful soldiers up to their mid 40's. The very poor and the very rich tended to die earlier. One from undernourishment and the other from over. Better to be in the middle back in the day.Closer than that. A large number of us would be raised by someone other than our parents because our mothers had died in childbirth and/or our fathers succumbed to various illnesses.
We would also habitually talk about how many living and dead siblings we have as the deaths of infants and toddlers would literally be an everyday occurence.
*one could argue slightly higher if you take away modern medicine. EG type 2 diabetes was significantly rarer in the populations of the past and almost unknown in tribal types.Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.
0 -
-
Nothing so far thank god/fate/the universe. I've been very lucky on that front *touch wood*. NO allergies that I know of and nothing major failed or went gammy. Sure I've had the odd infection over the years, but never took antibiotics for them as luckily they went away on their own. Ive had a fair few stitches over the years, but they had them from way back so... With all that you'd think I'd look like this but I'm more a case of this
Lol....I always imagined you to look just like your avatar :PThat was the biggie in the past. Infant mortality was scarily high. That said, outside the rolling plagues of the middle ages, if you actually made it to 20 and thereafter avoided accident death or war, your chances of hitting 70(if you were male) were pretty good and not that far off the odds today for a 20 year old*. We're much more likely to see 80 plus though. It's remarkable how many famous types from the past got to good ages. EG Michelangelo and Titian were in their late 80's and most of the famous arty types of the time hit 70 plus. In Roman times 70 odd wasn't so unusual. Roman soldiers would recieve a pension and a bit of land to farm after 25 years service, so they were considered still useful soldiers up to their mid 40's. The very poor and the very rich tended to die earlier. One from undernourishment and the other from over. Better to be in the middle back in the day.
*one could argue slightly higher if you take away modern medicine. Eg type 2 diabetes was significantly rarer in the populations of the past and almost unknown in tribal types.
Funny recently I was wondering what would life expectancy be if nobody had invented smoking. It must have had a huge hit on life expectancy figures in the 20th century.robbie7730 wrote: »Yea we are likely living beyond our natural lifespan really, which has its own problems in later life too.
What are you basing this on ?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sorry, I totally misread your post now looking at it.robbie7730 wrote: »I know we can factor in child mortality or not, and all that. But imo, modern medicine and other criteria, have increased life expectancy.
There is no doubt about it. There are a lot of people who quote nonsense about paleolithic man living to 90 years of age on average because of their diet, but none of this has been backed up by any evidence.
Some sources do suggest an average age for the paleo man in his 30's. This would be phenomenally good considering that for the past 12,000 years we've been closer to an average of 25. But it still doesn't put the average oldest individuals within spitting distance of 90 or even 80 years of age.
I think this has been discussed before, but the biggest leap in the actual "life expectancy" figure that the media like to talk about is the massive drop in neonatal and infant deaths over the last century moreso than stretching it at the other end.
If you take two people, one who died at 90 and the other who died at six weeks, you'd say the average life expectancy for a 3rd person is then 45 years. When in reality if that third person manages to survive childhood they will likely live to ninety (going by this horrifically simple example).0 -
Sorry, I totally misread your post now looking at it.
There is no doubt about it. There are a lot of people who quote nonsense about paleolithic man living to 90 years of age on average because of their diet, but none of this has been backed up by any evidence.
Some sources do suggest an average age for the paleo man in his 30's. This would be phenomenally good considering that for the past 12,000 years we've been closer to an average of 25. But it still doesn't put the average oldest individuals within spitting distance of 90 or even 80 years of age.
I think this has been discussed before, but the biggest leap in the actual "life expectancy" figure that the media like to talk about is the massive drop in neonatal and infant deaths over the last century moreso than stretching it at the other end.
If you take two people, one who died at 90 and the other who died at six weeks, you'd say the average life expectancy for a 3rd person is then 45 years. When in reality if that third person manages to survive childhood they will likely live to ninety (going by this horrifically simple example).
Yes I was just about to post about removing infant mortality, which certainly distorts the figures of how long a person can expect to live once they pass that high risk stage.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
I'd probably be dead, given I was born three months premature. Also had asthma when I was younger and apparently turned blue in the face and went limp when I was small when we were living in London during a year when the air was particularly bad or something and had to be rushed to hospital, so I'm glad for that too! Fine now though thank God.:D
Although sometimes I think did I not cheat natural selection? Should I not rightly be dead and is it weakening human evolution? (awful serious questions
) 0
Advertisement