• Krauerking
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Eh it’s all subjective and honestly a bullshit statistic to get people to shut up about how bad they have it, à la “well kids are starving in Africa.”

    Don’t get me wrong. Way less child death, way less time spent processing your own food for the winter, access to advanced medicine if you can afford it but otherwise it really doesn’t mean anything. It’s a clever statement to try to push back against people wanting it to be better and pretend they are enlightened to how bad it is.

    Life expectancy is still basically the same. It’s not like people didn’t live well into their 90s even Before Common Era. Less physical labor is nice but also new health issues are arising anyways. And actually average lifespan is going down for those with less wealth.

    It’s essentially a litmus test for seeing if you can be an optimist in the face systemic issues that are currently occuring and an easy hand wave of “well im sure people were more upset in the past”

    I think the only true metric we should be comparing people to is the present. The majority will always be in the past but the people alive today are more important than ghosts.

      • Krauerking
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think it’s still not obvious that it just means a higher percentage are making it to older ages. If you made it into your 30s your likelihood of living to old age was pretty good.

        I think my argument does make light of how much the average person was dying really young though.

        • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          If you made it into your 30s your likelihood of living to old age was pretty good.

          It may have been ‘pretty good’, but its still markedly worse than what it is now.