Bingo! Now you are on to something.
[quote=“unreal24278, post:240, topic:288532”][quote=“unreal24278, post:240, topic:288532”]
doesn’t HAVE to advertise junk food all the time.
[/quote]
That’s why I referred to it as late-stage capitalism.
Not the U.S. That would be interfering with choice.
It was likely around 35 or maybe 40. Lower if you include infant mortality rates.
The truth is we have no comprehensive epidemiological records from the ancient world
Epidemiology didn’t really exist and even if it did so much in the way of information has been lost to time…
However we look at the conditions of pre-modern society coupled with historical data we can take a guess… Thankfully relatively similar living conditions were omnipresent in most of these societies.
Lack of food was a common demoninator whenever weather became extreme, disease was a common issue, as was infection due to poor hygiene and lack of understanding behind wound sanitation, war was an issue.
One can create epidemiological models based on literary anecdote, human remains + societal conditions + events at any given time like wars, disease, food availability, migration, internal religion based conflict etc.
However these models are often corrupted by infant mortality rates which as you’ve mentioned are extremely high (as are child and adolescent mortality rates esp in times of war).
If people survived their most vulnerable years (which would be the first 20-25 years after which you were probably less likely to be used in war) it appears as if living til what we today would call middle age or earlier senior age was feasible. Those who didn’t succumb to disease, infection, starvation, war, natural disasters etc often lived until 50-60… But this was unlikely. Even if you survived infancy I don’t believe the AVERAGE guy lived til 60 or older.
It certainly happened. Some even lived til 90+ (top tier genetics). But back then all it took was drinking tainted water, getting a cut that got infected etc. The most vulnerable years were the infant years… But after that it was a huge ordeal to survive childhood, adolescence AND early adulthood.
So I concede you are right in that people were capable of living till old age back then. However conditions back then were not conducive for living a long life.
I’m sure cavemen also lived until their sixties if environmental contraints, natural disasters, famine, conflict etc didn’t take them out. But how many cavemen died hunting animals, fighting other humans, from disease, infection, starvation and more?
During the last glacial period I’m sure the life expectancy dipped very low as humans would have struggled to adapt. Men and women from that era 10,000 years ago when the average global temperature was around 32 degrees farenheight didn’t live very long. If they beat the odds they probably had a decent lifespan… But how many beat the odds?
The infant mortality rates and child/adolescent mortality rates do matter. If the average life expectancy during the second world war in Bosnia dropped to 26. If you beat the odds you’d live til 60-70 or so.
But how many beat the odds? Doesn’t it matter if most didn’t beat those odds? The life expectancy equates to average age of death. If 70% of the population dies before 40 and 30% make it to 60-80 is it the norm to make it to old age?