Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Age in context [View all]

Sympthsical

(9,827 posts)
4. Not really how life expectancy worked back then
Tue Feb 20, 2024, 11:38 AM
Feb 2024

If you managed to live past much higher infant mortality and childhood illnesses, you had a reasonable expectation of making it decently far, particularly if you were wealthy and not part of the laboring classes.

You get those low numbers because infant mortality could be 25% or higher and children died often. When you average it all out, it's low. But, if you made it to adulthood and weren't living in an open sewer, your life span wasn't going to be super crazy different than it is today. Lower, but not 50s. If you look at a list of Presidents, you'll see a lot of them in the 19th Century made it to their 70s, excepting Super Wonder Harrison, some assassinations, alcoholism, and cancer.

Money always makes a difference.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Age in context»Reply #4