574
Excellent point...
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
574 points (99.5% liked)
History Memes
2594 readers
910 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
-
History referenced must be 20+ years old.
-
Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
- !askhistorians@piefed.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You also lived for 32 years, tops, and had 9 children for 3 to survive
No, half the people died in early childhood and most of the rest lived for around 40-70 years. Agriculture also sometimes made life expectancies worse, even in the year 1900 life expectancy globally was still less than 35.
Year 1900 life expectancy seems like it would be more severely impacted by industrialization than agriculture. But yeah, hunter-gatherers don't just drop dead at 32.
I think one thing that kept life expectancies low was high child mortality, that will skew the average downwards. Unless they were accounting for that measured separately