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

The DU Lounge

dimbear

(6,271 posts)

1. The distribution of age a millenium ago wasn't so different as all that.

Reply to hyphenate (Original post)

Fri Mar 16, 2012, 09:37 PM

Mar 2012

Life expectancy was short because lots of folk died while infants. Once you got to be about 30, you had a good chance of making 70, only slightly less than you would today.

Medicine started to change the curve a little tiny bit around 1900, not before then , and then not by much.

In period books you see references to old folks who are 60 or so, which is a bit hurtful to a codger like me, but the fact is that a person who was 60 wasn't probably a valuable field hand or woodchopper or turnip peeler. Probably more useful as a reclusive noblewoman or quack doctor.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Getting old [View all] hyphenate Mar 2012 OP

The distribution of age a millenium ago wasn't so different as all that. dimbear Mar 2012 #1

The shorter life expectancy at birth was mostly due to two things: Spider Jerusalem Mar 2012 #2

My dad's father hyphenate Mar 2012 #3

One thing I'm noticing pipi_k Mar 2012 #4

This guy sends me a birthday card every year now. Ikonoklast Mar 2012 #5