Long of this world: The strange science of immortality by Jonathan Weiner
SolomonW
Apparently, the author makes this claim in the book.
Professor Weiner states that the average life expectancy during the stone
age was about 20 years, during the height of the Roman Empire, it was 25,
during the Middle Ages it was 30, during the Renaissance it was 33.....
Is this true?
If it is true why conditions led to an increase in life expectancy from the
Roman Empire, to the Middle Ages to the Renaissance?
Paul J Gans
>Is this true?
Life expectancy is a very tricky subject. One really has to define
what one is measuring.
For instance, if the infant death rate is high, then the average
life expectancy is low.
Example: if the average family has three children, one of whom dies
at birth or during the first year and the other two live to be 40,
the average life expectancy is (40 + 40 + 0)/3 = 26.7 years.
On the other hand, if the family has six children and three of them
die during the first year and the other three live to be 40, the
average life expectacy is 20.
Our ability to cure disease has really existed only since WWII.
Further, life expectancy is often measured by looking at the ages
of skeletons in cemetaries. There are lots of difficulties with
that.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I don't know what the book says but my understand is that while in
ancient times there were may things which could kill you off at an
early age, if you escaped all these your life expectancy remained at
the biblical three score and ten, much the same as it is today. In
other words, its so much that we are living longer (although to some
extent we are) as that we are not dying sooner.
Having said that, the biblical three score and ten was a rough
estimate based on pretty crude estimates. These days we are doing
better simply because medical research is enabling us to better combat
terminal diseases such as cancer or heart attacks.
Eric Stevens
John Briggs
Because, despite the Dark Ages being dark, economic activity (e.g. GDP
per capita) was higher. Towns were pretty unhealthy places in the Middle
ages (and later), but presumably Roman ones were as well.
--
John Briggs
W. Baker
I am no expert, but I believe that rome has good fresh water supplies in
the cities through extensive aquaduct ssystems that were often lacking in
later periods. I don't know abouat sewer arrangement , however. Perhaps
someone here does, even if it is a bid more toward the ancient history
side of things.
Wendy Wisan Baker
Paul J Gans
Towns were unhealthy only in the later Middle Ages. Most were too
small to have serious problems before say 1200 AD.
SolomonW
> SolomonW <Solo...@ayaannospam.com> wrote:
>>I have not read this book, but I have read a review of this book.
>>Apparently, the author makes this claim in the book.
>
>>Professor Weiner states that the average life expectancy during the stone
>>age was about 20 years, during the height of the Roman Empire, it was 25,
>>during the Middle Ages it was 30, during the Renaissance it was 33.....
>
>>Is this true?
>
>>If it is true why conditions led to an increase in life expectancy from the
>>Roman Empire, to the Middle Ages to the Renaissance?
>
> Life expectancy is a very tricky subject. One really has to define
> what one is measuring.
>
> For instance, if the infant death rate is high, then the average
> life expectancy is low.
>
> Example: if the average family has three children, one of whom dies
> at birth or during the first year and the other two live to be 40,
> the average life expectancy is (40 + 40 + 0)/3 = 26.7 years.
>
> On the other hand, if the family has six children and three of them
> die during the first year and the other three live to be 40, the
> average life expectacy is 20.
Actually, this part did confuse me. I suspect in Roman periods infant death
was recorded less than in medieval society. The Roman's system was that a
child had to be accepted by the father, even if the parents were wed, if
the father rejected the kid, it probably would be silently killed. This
would not happen so often in medieval society.
Conversely if someone was a cripple or old he would get better treatment in
medieval society than Roman.
>
> Our ability to cure disease has really existed only since WWII.
>
>
> Further, life expectancy is often measured by looking at the ages
> of skeletons in cemetaries. There are lots of difficulties with
> that.
Indeed especially considering it is only three years
SolomonW
I think John Briggs may have a valid point medieval society was less urban
and cities were much smaller than Roman cities so healthier to live in.
SolomonW
The Roman's had a very good system of sanitation however it was not
anything like a modern system also inside the city were little farms. There
was little rubbish collection. As such they were to us very dirty and
desease ridden.
John Briggs
But the really important point is economic - the richer the society, the
longer the average life expectancy. Even today, health is dependent on
income. In unequal societies, such as the USA, there are wild
disparities in health (and hence life expectancy.)
--
John Briggs
am...@hotmail.com
Judging by how the subject is formulated, it is quite possible that
comparison is between apples and oranges. Life expectancy during Stone
Age in which geographic area? Roman Empire has a well-defined
geography but 'Middle Ages' is a rather arbiotrary defined time span
and not necessarily a geographic region (and if we are talking about a
geographic region, it is not identical to the Roman Empire). The same
goes for Renaissance: Italian Renaissance or a broad definition
applicable to a broader geographic area (and not necessarily
coinciding with the Italian Renaissance by time)?
Even now, life expectancy varies (AFAIK) in the different countries.
Not to mention that different countries have different ways to count
it: IIRC, the US is one of the few countries were mortality during the
birth (including abortions) is officially counted whicl some countries
do not record death for few weeks after the birth.
am...@hotmail.com
However, their sanitation system was considerably better than one of
the medieval and post-medieval european cities. Even in XVIII in some
of the major european cities <youknowwhat> had been thrown out of the
window onto the street and, in the best case scenario, there was a
straw on the street which from time to time had been collected and
carried away.
Paul J Gans
That's exactly what I'm disagreeing about. The argument might be
valid for cities, but towns in the earlier part of the Middle Ages
were quite small, relatively uncrowded, and fairly clean.
Paul J Gans
This was especially pronounced in the Middle Ages. The nobility
not only lived longer, they were taller and stronger. This was even
more true among the high nobility.
A great uncle of mine came to the US in the 1890's. He'd grown up
in a small Austrian town eating typical peasent food. He stood, at
best five feet high.
In his late 20's he moved to California, married a woman about his
height, and produced two children. Both kids grew to be over six
feet tall.
This is not an uncommon story. Better food and healthier living
conditions did it.
am...@hotmail.com
> John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >On 05/11/2010 08:31, SolomonW wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 Nov 2010 00:10:26 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> >>>> On 04/11/2010 15:57, SolomonW wrote:
> >>>>> I have not read this book, but I have read a review of this book.
> >>>>> Apparently, the author makes this claim in the book.
>
> >>>>> Professor Weiner states that the average life expectancy during the stone
> >>>>> age was about 20 years, during the height of the Roman Empire, it was 25,
> >>>>> during the Middle Ages it was 30, during the Renaissance it was 33.....
>
> >>>>> Is this true?
>
> >>>>> If it is true why conditions led to an increase in life expectancy from the
> >>>>> Roman Empire, to the Middle Ages to the Renaissance?
>
> >>>> Because, despite the Dark Ages being dark, economic activity (e.g. GDP
> >>>> per capita) was higher. Towns were pretty unhealthy places in the Middle
> >>>> ages (and later), but presumably Roman ones were as well.
>
> >>> Towns were unhealthy only in the later Middle Ages. Most were too
> >>> small to have serious problems before say 1200 AD.
>
> >> I think John Briggs may have a valid point medieval society was less urban
> >> and cities were much smaller than Roman cities so healthier to live in.
> >But the really important point is economic - the richer the society, the
> >longer the average life expectancy. Even today, health is dependent on
> >income. In unequal societies, such as the USA, there are wild
> >disparities in health (and hence life expectancy.)
>
> This was especially pronounced in the Middle Ages. The nobility
> not only lived longer,
Sorry, but quite a few of them did NOT live 'longer' due to the letal
dosage of the iron poisoning.
> they were taller and stronger. This was even
> more true among the high nobility.
>
Really?
Friederich II was (AFAIK) very short. Can't tell about the 1st and 2nd
Valouis kings but, AFAIK, the rest were physically quite unimpressive
until Francouis I and the same goes for the Burgundian branch (again,
not sure about Charles the Bold). Henry IV (of France), Louis XIII and
Louis XIV were neither tall nor strong (well, Louis XIV had a very
well functionaning digestive system because he survived to a really
advanced age on excessively high cholesterol diet). Prince Eugene was
small (and not very healthy), King John was almost a dwarf (while his
brother Dick was, presumably tall, probably was grabbing the better
pieces of food).
> A great uncle of mine came to the US in the 1890's. He'd grown up
> in a small Austrian town eating typical peasent food.
As far as my personal experience goes, Austrian food is good. Better
than what I'm getting when coming to SF. Did not try 'typical peasant'
food of XIX century so perhaps I'm missing something very important.
> He stood, at
> best five feet high.
>
> In his late 20's he moved to California, married a woman about his
> height, and produced two children. Both kids grew to be over six
> feet tall.
>
> This is not an uncommon story. Better food and healthier living
> conditions did it.
Having a tall, nice looking neighbor also can help. :-)
BTW, how exactly Californian food of the late XIX was 'better'?
Except, perhaps, for having the greater portions of meat.
SolomonW
> Roman Empire has a well-defined
> geography but 'Middle Ages' is a rather arbiotrary defined time span
> and not necessarily a geographic region
I agree with you abour Middle ages but let me point out that the Roman
Empire is often not so well defined either.
SolomonW
This would happen in Roman cities too. If if it happened in the daytime you
could sue if you were hit by the garbage but not at night. Similarly, you
could be fined in the daytime. I suspect that at night it would be almost
impossible to catch the person who did it. As a result the poorer areas of
a Roman city were absolutely dirty. Over time layers of garbage would just
collect. I think it was Napoleon III that first started garbage
collections.
SolomonW
> That's exactly what I'm disagreeing about. The argument might be
> valid for cities, but towns in the earlier part of the Middle Ages
> were quite small, relatively uncrowded, and fairly clean.
And would that be different to a Roman town?
One point I think is significant is that the Church in medieval Europe was
that charity was much more common than in Roman society.
Bill
>the medieval and post-medieval european cities. Even in XVIII in some
>of the major european cities <youknowwhat> had been thrown out of the
>window onto the street and, in the best case scenario, there was a
>straw on the street which from time to time had been collected and
>carried away.
The medieval court rolls I've seen are full of people being fined for
dumping their rubbish on the street...
robert...@gmail.com
Michael Kuettner
There's still a special party for any child reaching 5 years ...
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner