Life Expectancy

[lake]

I have seen the same as you grave stone (head stones) .... old ones in graveyards which have life periods longer than one may expect?

 

It always bugged me that dead generations were not so young when they died.

 

We get show data such as this:

 

 

Which is meant to show how wonderful current medicine is and all the drugs used.

 

So today I had a few hours and thought to look at this concept.

I chose 1700-1800 as a time period.

Well .... 1708 to 1808 as that is the information I could find which I could use.

Which from the graph above looks like this:

 

 

(by the way .... the big drop in 1723-1733 is down to the queen 'Bloody Mary')

 

I wanted to consider the effect of 'money' on life expectancy .... so I needed to find a 'group' of people.

Where to find them?

 

As it turns out, the old bullshitter wiki does have, year by year, deaths of Notable people!

Useful.

So I began to take the year by year deaths of these individuals and average their age at death.

I intended to do it for the 100 years but got bored as it is fucking boring to do :)

 

But we can see that those who had constant access to clean water, food and shelter (those notable people) did NOT die at an average of 37 years .... vastly from it!

Now I did get bored doing it but the blue is the average per year for those deemed noteworthy and the red is the above world in data graph put onto it.

(as said .... I stopped after it was obvious the 'path' of it)

 

 

If you just take it at face value then there is a 25-30 year life difference .... BUT you should consider that the blue is within the red and if you took the blue out then the red would be much lower?

 

All of history is a lie and it is presented in a way to lull the 'mass' into compliance.

 

Edit:

 

Please note that the huge drop in life length in 1723-33 did NOT effect the 'people with money'!

Edited May 10, 2021 by lake

[Mitochondrial Eve]

1 hour ago, lake said:

(by the way .... the big drop in 1723-1733 is down to the queen 'Bloody Mary')

 

Perhaps there is something I am missing here, but 'Bloody Mary' (Mary Tudor also known as Mary I) reigned from July 1553 until her death in November 1558. So I don't think she can be held responsible for the drop in life expectancy between 1723-1733. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

 

As for whether life expectancy was a great deal lower in the 18th century, I have researched my family history and found that infant deaths were not at all uncommon which would have considerably decreased the average life expectancy. The notable people only became notable because they survived infancy, so that could in part explain the discrepancy along with, as you say, a better lifestyle and diet than your average member of the hoi polloi.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Mitochondrial Eve

[novymir]

Yeah, I looked at "life expenctancy"years ago, what is often overlooked is how infant mortality effects the "average".

 

 

 

 

For me it's Quality, not quantity.

[lake]

18 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Perhaps there is something I am missing here, but 'Bloody Mary' (Mary Tudor also known as Mary I) reigned from July 1553 until her death in November 1558. So I don't think she can be held responsible for the drop in life expectancy between 1723-1733. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England

 

 

you are correct of course .... I got my 'drops' mixed up as I posted. The first image holds the 'drop' caused by Bloody Mary

 

 

which began 1553 and not 1723.

[Oxide]

I've noticed this too, seeing headstones from centuries ago denoting people having died in their 70's in the 17-1800's.

I've been aware for a long time now that "official" data could well be fabricated, with the authors of which full well knowing that it'll be accepted.

Could they use this "data" of a "longer" life expectancy to justify their mass sterilisation when it's finally discovered by masses of people who can't conceive any longer??

[mike bayko]

Honestly life expectancy is kind of a scam imo.

 

The main reason life expectancy was so low is probably because of all of the babies that died and children that died at a very young age from diseases.

 

I can't fathom how mass amounts of people actually believe that people literally died at the "ripe old age of 28" a couple hundred years ago lmao. Maybe that was the case in England and other over populated areas, but from my research into my own family, throughout the 1700s, of the family members of mine that did not die in infancy, many of them lived to be at least 80, however it was fairly common for my relatives throughout the 1700s, 1600s, and before to live into their 90s, and several lived to be over 100. Those who died prematurely before 70 usually died from an accident or tragedy. Many men in my family had children into their 60s and 70s, two of my relatives that I know of even had children in to their early 80s, and the women in my family could have children into their late 50s and sometimes even early 60s. It is not fair and is rather preposterous to impose the "data" (data is in quotes because I agree with Oxide's skepticism as to whether or not the said official data is even legitimate) from overpopulated areas in England onto everyone that lived during the time (If the data from England can even be trusted of course). The countrysides of eastern Europe was nothing like England or other western European city areas.