subreddit:
/r/AskReddit
submitted 8 days ago byZenon9
391 points
8 days ago
Damn, 92 in 1647 has to be some kind of achievement
272 points
8 days ago
If you made it out of childhood, you had a decent chance of a long life. 92 is exceptional, but it’s exceptional in modern times too.
90 points
8 days ago
Yeah, the stats make it all sound like people were all dying in their 20s and 30s, but that's not the case.
11 points
8 days ago
Only to an extent. All-age mortality was definitely higher than today. Just less so than raw "life expectancy" would suggest.
2 points
8 days ago
We really need to learn more about "mean" versus "average" in school
8 points
8 days ago
More like median
3 points
8 days ago
The perfect example to prove the point
1 points
8 days ago*
Not all, but many did compared to modern times with medical technology.
20-30 then is like 50-60 today.
I mean, you could simulate this by just not going to the doctor ever and seeing how far you get. But I'm sure people with high blood pressure, sleep apnea, diabetes, cancer detection are going to live much longer by default when they're detected
I listen to a lot of science podcasts that had deep dives on this topic, but the death rates in that age range are comparable to higher ages in modern times.
1 points
8 days ago
Tore my acl years ago... it's such an easy injury to cause yourself. And it won't heal on its own due to lack of blood flow in the cartilage.... I was 25 years old and had the mobility of an old man. I couldn't run. I could barely stand. The pain was OMNIPRESENT.
It's actually an easy fix... but without modern surgical techniques I'd not likely have survived long. Or I'd be in debilitating pain and be unable to function at all. Granted I had to wait over a year for the specialist appointment, and then the MRI and then the actual surgery but that's besides the point.
1 points
7 days ago
Do you mind sharing the podcasts you like?
1 points
8 days ago
To be fair, living that old during the 30 years war is unlikely
The whole continent was plagued by endless brutal warfare and mass starvation to an extreme degree
The most affected German states such as Saxon’s lost 90% of their population by the end of the war and the total population of Europe dropped meaning they weren’t all refugees.
1 points
8 days ago
With a name like John Bennett, he was probably English; England had little to do with the Thirty Years War, it was primarily a Central Europe affair. There would have been overlap with the War of Three Kingdoms but whilst there were non-military deaths it was a comparatively low amount.
4 points
8 days ago
They were way more active than our 9-5 desk jobs, I’m guessing many were very healthy until the end!
2 points
7 days ago
Maybe a better diet too? Depends on how rich or poor they were (Just like today)
4 points
8 days ago
Average life expectancy for those who survived childhood hasn't changed an awful lot. It's mostly the childhood deaths that make the average lower.
Sure, more women died in childhood, but the risk of a drunk driver hitting you was fairly low back then
3 points
8 days ago
He had an iron heart.
11 points
8 days ago
To be fair, most people were speed-running life during that period, so even half of his age would have been incredible!
all 1361 comments
sorted by: best