It’s funny, cuz 35 really wasn’t ancient, it was just lucky. People didn’t live shorter lives on average, they’d frequently die super-young.
It’s kinda like mechanical hard drive failure rates: if a hard drive is gonna prematurely fail, it usually happens within the first two years. After the first two years, you’re expected to see a reasonable lifetime with your hard drive. Even then, it’s normal to expect less than a 2% early failure rate. So, if your hard drive fails early, you’re one of the unlucky few.
If we were to elevate that premature failure rate to 20%, you’d see a significant drop in the average lifespan of hard drives. And if you were one of those unlucky 1 in 5 whose hard drive failed at less than 2 years, then you’d be like, “well, guess I had a bad one.” But if your hard drive made it past the two-year mark, you’d be one of those other 80% of people whose hard drives should last an expected 5-7 years.
If that same hard drive then failed after 3 years, you’d be like, “shit, that’s a really short time for my hard drive to last past the two-year window.” And then you’d be in a newer, more exclusive category of hard drives that didn’t die before 2 years, but still died at a point that would be considered young.
So, it’s not like everyone died at 30, they just had really high premature failure rates. Dying at 30 was seen as a bit of an oddity.
Another lesson in what happens if you apply averages for inappropriate purposes. Also looking at life expectancy at birth (which will be polluted by extremely high infant and child death rates) compared to say life expectancy at age 25, which will reveal that it was common to live into your fifties.
Still much lower than today, but people were not dropping dead at 30.
If they frequently die very young that would indeed affect the average and it did - - the average life span has changed. Perhaps you mean the median age and mode age of death were disproportionately less affected?
Ohhhh! Look at @Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works, knowing that words have meaning and what they mean!
Yeah, I totally meant that, and I can see how that mistake would make the rest of my argument look ridiculous. Especially the part where I incorrectly say that the average wasn’t affected, and then later explained how the average was affected.
35 is ancient in medieval times. 🤷♂️
It’s funny, cuz 35 really wasn’t ancient, it was just lucky. People didn’t live shorter lives on average, they’d frequently die super-young.
It’s kinda like mechanical hard drive failure rates: if a hard drive is gonna prematurely fail, it usually happens within the first two years. After the first two years, you’re expected to see a reasonable lifetime with your hard drive. Even then, it’s normal to expect less than a 2% early failure rate. So, if your hard drive fails early, you’re one of the unlucky few.
If we were to elevate that premature failure rate to 20%, you’d see a significant drop in the average lifespan of hard drives. And if you were one of those unlucky 1 in 5 whose hard drive failed at less than 2 years, then you’d be like, “well, guess I had a bad one.” But if your hard drive made it past the two-year mark, you’d be one of those other 80% of people whose hard drives should last an expected 5-7 years.
If that same hard drive then failed after 3 years, you’d be like, “shit, that’s a really short time for my hard drive to last past the two-year window.” And then you’d be in a newer, more exclusive category of hard drives that didn’t die before 2 years, but still died at a point that would be considered young.
So, it’s not like everyone died at 30, they just had really high premature failure rates. Dying at 30 was seen as a bit of an oddity.
Only Lemmy would use the analogy of hard drive failure rates to explain this.
I figured it was the most useful analogy to meet people where they’re at
Another lesson in what happens if you apply averages for inappropriate purposes. Also looking at life expectancy at birth (which will be polluted by extremely high infant and child death rates) compared to say life expectancy at age 25, which will reveal that it was common to live into your fifties.
Still much lower than today, but people were not dropping dead at 30.
If they frequently die very young that would indeed affect the average and it did - - the average life span has changed. Perhaps you mean the median age and mode age of death were disproportionately less affected?
Ohhhh! Look at @Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works, knowing that words have meaning and what they mean!
Yeah, I totally meant that, and I can see how that mistake would make the rest of my argument look ridiculous. Especially the part where I incorrectly say that the average wasn’t affected, and then later explained how the average was affected.
But you did age more, you would likely have looked older than a modern person of the same age
If you survived until around 20 you could live a long time. However 35 was ancient then (as it is now).
No it isn’t