patrick.net

EDIT: Make that tens of thousands of skeletons.

Life span of Hunter Gathers as counted and studied over the long term by Anthropologists, along with the numbers of people over 50.
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

You'll see the person-years for the over 50 crowd is a fraction of than the person-years overall in each population.

Swedes from a decade in the mid 18th is given for comparison; it's in the same ballpark as the Hunter-Gatherers.

Everything backs up the "to get past 50 is rare" theory.

thunderlips11 says

You're confused. The numbers I gave for Anglo-Saxon Dark Age Britain were the lifespans of ordinary individuals measured by the ages of hundreds of skeletons in the grave

Some conclusions from the Hunter Gatherer Paper (link) I shared for you to check out:

A fundamental conclusion we draw from this analysis is that extensive longevity
appears to be a novel feature of Homo sapiens. Our results contradict
Vallois’s (1961: 222) claim that among early humans, “few individuals passed
forty years, and it is only quite exceptionally that any passed fifty,” and the
more traditional Hobbesian view of a nasty, brutish, and short human life (see
also King and Jukes 1969; Weiss 1981). The data show that modal adult life
span is 68–78 years, and that it was not uncommon for individuals to reach
these ages, suggesting that inferences based on paleodemographic reconstruction
are unreliable.

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/gurven/papers/GurvenKaplan2007pdr.pdf

thunderlips11 says

Swedes from a decade in the mid 18th is given for comparison; it's in the same ballpark as the Hunter-Gatherers.

Everything backs up the "to get past 50 is rare" theory.

No.

OR try Wikepedia and its sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

This directly contradicts you.

Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:[24]

1200–1300: to age 64
1300–1400: to age 45 (due to the impact of the bubonic plague)
1400–1500: to age 69
1500–1550: to age 71

Maybe you can get to where you realize that you might be wrong. Again, what does your common sense tell you ? DO you really think we evolved that much in a few centuries, or a couple thousand years. Sure environments and other conditions have often made it difficult for humans to live for their natural lifespan, but that natural lifespan is and has been in the neighborhood of 6 to 7 decades probably for thousands of years. Current diets, less stress, medicine, and so on have added a few years to this. And of course antibiotics and big reductions in infant mortality have made it possible for way more people to make it to a full lifespan, bringing the averages way up.

For evolution to optimize the age at which they have children, you would need to consider a life expectancy that will cover most females (i.e. below average) in pre-historical times. Preferably over a couple millions years.

marcus says

Maybe you can get to where you realize that you might be wrong.

The Chart you posted excludes a large group of humans, including many of reproductive age, under 15. In traditional times, plenty of "Children" under 15 had children of their own

Again, it's the old "If my aunt had balls..." type of measurement to make the primitive era look better than it was.

The is a reason modern society population graphs are a rectangle, and going back prior to WW2 it's a Pyramid. How could this be if so many people were living so long?

High Child and Childbirth mortality is even more of a reason to reproduce early and often.

thunderlips11 says

Chart excludes humans, including many of reproductive age

I give up. I don't know what you're looking at.

thunderlips11 says

The is a reason modern society population graphs are a rectangle, and going back prior to WW2 it's a Pyramid. How could this be if so many people were living so long?

???

Clearly you know what the hell you're talking about, but I don't. Sounds almost like Math or logic. Whatever you do, don't elaborate enough to clarify how nonsensical it probably is.

DO you mean that there used to be less old people than young people ? Compared to now ? Sure that's true, simply because of infections, disease or violence or whatever taking their lives before they made it to old age. But they were far more likely to make it to old age than you think, at least in places where life styles allowed for it.. And it's been our underlying potential all along.

marcus says

I give up. I don't know what you're looking at.

I'm looking at your chart; read the fine print. It's a "We're not counting any test scores under 30%" chart - they exclude child deaths as well as those 12, 13, 14 year old girls who were of reproductive age who could have died in childbirth. Read the fine print under the chart.

Same problem here.
marcus says

Having survived until the age of 21, a male member of the English aristocracy in this period could expect to live:[24]

That's the great distortion!

As I showed with Edward I's progeny, only 2 of his 19 descendents lived past 50.

Also note "Aristocracy", to boot.

If we exclude all deaths to disease, we find that most soliders in history died of combat wounds...

Also the bible tells us that before the flood, people used to routinely live 800 years or more.

But seriously there are many records in ancient Greece, Rome, China and elsewhere of people living to 80 or higher. I'm sure it might have been somewhat rare, but I doubt that 60 was rare.

thunderlips11 says

That's the great distortion!

Why ? It's what we've been talking about all along. Not expectancy at birth, or taking in to account being killed in wars.

thunderlips11 says

As I showed with Edward I's progeny, only 2 of his 19 children lived past 50

And that just happens to coincide with the plague, right ?

Look, you either believe the scholars and their conclusions on this or you act like the typical dimbulb AMerican that knows more than the experts because of a couple small pieces of data. In the case of this subject, it would seem that the opinion of experts has shifted in the pasy 50 years. Don't blame me. I'm not the experts, I'm just reporting what the experts now say. But it does fit with what my common sense tells me.

marcus says

But seriously there are many records in ancient Greece, Rome, China and elsewhere of people living to 80 or higher. I'm sure it might have been somewhat rare, but I doubt that 60 was rare.

Nobody disputes that some people saw 80, even 90 once in a blue moon.

Here is the past 100 years of population distribution for the USA via the Census. The percentage of people living over 50 today versus 1900 isn't even close. It's a multiple.

thunderlips11 says

The percentage of people living over 50 today versus 1900 isn't even close. It's a multiple

THat graph is about more than what you suggest it is. In the 1900 pyramid, the 75 year old had 4 or 5 children, the 55 year old child of his in the same pyramid also had 4 or 5 children, as did his kids. Also there was ridiculous amounts of immigration going on of people that came here and then had children. So I'm not sure what you can infer from that about longevity.

SImilarly in the 2000 chart. The difference between the people in the 40 - 44 group versus the 65 to 69 group that looks less than half the size has almost nothing to do with them dying off, and everything to do with the boomers being a bigger generation.

THe 1900 pyramid and it's low number of people oiver 60 would even be affected by the civil war.

marcus says

SImilarly in the 2000 chart. The difference between the people in the 40 - 44 group versus the 65 to 69 group that looks less than half the size has almost nothing to do with them dying off, and everything to do with the boomers being a bigger generation.

THe 1900 pyramid and it's low number of people oiver 60 would even be affected by the civil war.

Marcus, the point is that senior citizens were rare prior to modern medicine. I bet 1800 vs 2000 is more dramatic, if we had those kind of accurate numbers. 1900 already has a whole century of industrialization and massive technological gains built in.

Finland 1917 - Today

Mali Vs. Germany - which shape is closer to pre-Industrial Society?

Wow, so many men pretending to be some kind of alphafuck douche to get laid. No wonder God invented hookers.

Blackfriars, London Burial Site. Skeletons buried 1230-1320AD. 126 Skeletons recovered. The breakdown:

Merton Priory, Skeletons 1100-1500AD. Around 670 Skeletons. The Breakdown:

Again, the problem is assigning the responsibility.

Since women control the easiest and dominant forms of birth control (The Pill, Abortion), and yet are insulated from the effects of having a child they can't support via Welfare, there is no reason for many of them to "Choose Wisely."

The simple reform of not allowing women under the age of 18 from leaving their parents' house and demanding that the woman's immediate family disburse all their income for child support prior to being eligible for assistance is a good measure. Many parents who look the other way, including welfare ho grandmothers, would begin to demand their uncontrollable or irresponsible daughters take birth control or get an abortion.

Mandatory Sterilization of bastard factories, those women who have had 2 children while being on state support and/or under 18 in order to continue to receive or be eligible for benefits in the future, would go a long, long way to crushing crime, child abuse, idiocracy, lower educational outcomes, income inequality, and general disappointment.

And yeah, dudes who father more than 2 kids out of wedlock without the ability to pay child support should also be sterilized.

Creating two kids you can't support = Exercising your right to reproduce. No More. Just like we take driver's licenses from repeat DUIs.

thunderlips11 says

Marcus, the point is that senior citizens were rare prior to modern medicine.

Well your graphs don't show that. They mostly reflect infant mortality dropping hard and populations growing fast.

When this is going on:

you're going to get what you call those pyramid shaped graphs (in some places), because each successive generation is exponentially larger. IT's true that more people are making it past 65, but how many more is not something that can be inferred from your graphs.

I have to assume you're trolling me, because I think you know better. thunderlips11 says

Remember there were 600,000 in that same age group (over 65 in 1900) that were killed in the civil war).

Again your graphs don't tell us by how many more are making it to over 65 now. Just very rough guesstimating would tell me that if the population was stable, and everyone was dying around 83 average, then I would expect about 18% of the population to be over 65%. But if everyone was living to the same age (say 83 average) and the population was doubling every 30 or 40 years, like it was before 1900, then I would expect the number over 65 to be well under 10%.

I"m guessing at the most twice as many people make it past 65 now compared to 1900. Maybe slightly more, because antibiotics really are amazing, and during that entire interval of childhood to old age, antibiotics save many lives.

thunderlips11 says

Blackfriars, London Burial Site. Skeletons buried 1230-1320AD. 126 Skeletons recovered. The breakdown:

OKay, you've convinced me that you had reasons for being so wrong about this.

marcus says

Remember there were 600,000 in that same age group (over 65 in 1900) that were killed in the civil war).

"You forgot Finland" 1917 or America, 1920, where ACW wasn't or no longer was a factor.

Here's Scotland, 1861, by numbers of people.

Here's Britain, 1911, by numbers of people

Looks a lot like India, Brazil, Mali, etc. Today.

marcus says

Again your graphs don't tell us by how many more are making it to over 65 now.

Dude, that's exactly what the graphs show. The percentage of people by age group.

Of course they are. Cancer Treatments, Bypass Surgery, Powerful Antibiotics, Water Treatment, Sewers, Food Inspections.

Yeah, back in the wonderful Elysium of Hunter Gatherdom, those who hit the genetic lottery and avoided being bludgeoned, infected by scratching themselves on a dirty thorn bush, having their teeth rot and spreading an infection to the brain dying an incredibly painful and agonizing death that today is easily solved by the most underequipped, most backward third world with only the most basic supplies and a half-trained nurse health clinic, people could and did reach 60, 70, even 80.

Just not that many - and you don't have to go into the distant past to see it.

You have to have some serious blinders on if you don't believe that modern health care, esp. since the 1950s, has had an unbelievable impact on humanity. If you think the difference is only just better pre/post natal care - that's just a one factor among many.

People who push the "If you discount all the Napoleonic Era soldiers who didn't die of disease, then the number of soldiers who died in the Military of the Time was surprisingly small" version are doing a disservice, and they're doing it to create a False Image of a Bucolic Life as Medieval Peasants or Happy Noble Savages that never existed.

marcus says

OKay, you've convinced me that you had reasons for being so wrong about this.

Right, total coincidence that these charts and others from medieval cemeteries are dominated by 36-45 year olds. You can go anywhere in the world prior to the Modern Era, and see that ordinary burials are dominated by the graves of those in their 30s and 40s.

thunderlips11 says

You have to have some serious blinders on if you don't believe that modern health care, esp. since the 1950s, has had an unbelievable impact on humanity.

What the fuck. I agreed like seven times that a lot more people make it old age than 100 years ago. Maybe even twice as many or so. You don't even read my comments do you.

But what you conclude from your graphs is wrong. As for the burial grounds ?

marcus says

Some conclusions from the Hunter Gatherer Paper (link) I shared for you to check out:

A fundamental conclusion we draw from this analysis is that extensive longevity

appears to be a novel feature of Homo sapiens. Our results contradict

Vallois’s (1961: 222) claim that among early humans, “few individuals passed

forty years, and it is only quite exceptionally that any passed fifty,” and the

more traditional Hobbesian view of a nasty, brutish, and short human life (see

also King and Jukes 1969; Weiss 1981). The data show that modal adult life

span is 68–78 years, and that it was not uncommon for individuals to reach

these ages, suggesting that inferences based on paleodemographic reconstruction

are unreliable.

See the bold part ? Thats the part that refutes your supposed burial data.

thunderlips11 says

marcus says

Remember there were 600,000 in that same age group (over 65 in 1900) that were killed in the civil war).

"You forgot Finland" 1917 or America, 1920, where ACW wasn't or no longer was a factor.

I was Just giving the reason why 4% might be slightly low. Maybe without the war it would have been 5%. And maybe it caused them to be off on their 1920 guesstimate.

thunderlips11 says

marcus says

Again your graphs don't tell us by how many more are making it to over 65 now.

Dude, that's exactly what the graphs show. The percentage of people by age group.

I refuse to believe you're that stupid.

I suppose you primarily attribute the rapid acceleration in population growth (1840 to 1950) to the increasing numbers of old people ? Or is it the steady high rate of growth after that that's attributable to there being more old people ?

marcus says

thunderlips11 says

Mandatory Sterilization of bastard factories, those women who have had 2 children while being on state support and/or under 18 in order to continue to receive or be eligible for benefits in the future, would go a long, long way to crushing crime, child abuse, idiocracy, lower educational outcomes, income inequality, and general disappointment.

you are perhaps joking, but there is actually evidence that legalized abortion is responsible for the notable drop in violent crime rate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

marcus says

See the bold part ? Thats the part that refutes your supposed burial data.

Uh, no. This ONE study said to be careful of making wide demographic reconstructions from a few burials, based on examining a few living populations of Hunter-Gatherers. However, these living populations of Hunter Gatherers who have been visited, are visited, and will be visited by Missionaries and NGOs baring vaccines, antibiotics, etc. Most of them have been visiting them long before the Anthropologists arrived. They also "go into town" and trade and buy things. The Ache certainly do so. I saw one in the street the other day, drinking a Coke and selling beads and wood flutes by the bus stop. The Public Hospital, free to all citizens, of whom the Ache definitely are, is right down the road. Furthermore, we do know that Hunter-Gatherer populations wax and wane based on various environmental conditions, so a snapshot of a few years in time tells us little.

For myself, I will go by repeated tests based on actual graves based on long-proven Chemistry and Forensic Medical techniques of diagnosing age from bones and teeth. Also, Anglo-Saxons in the Dark Age, Medieval German, or English Peasants, aren't Hunter Gatherers. Agriculturalists tend to die from infectious diseases; HGs tend to die from accidents. When you sleep under a tree every night, thousands of times in your life, it's actually quite a realistic hazard to fear one falling on you when asleep.

Perhaps more studies of primitive agriculturalists and HGs need to be done, until then, it's just one study that goes against many others. Going to be very hard to find groups so isolated, they haven't been "Spoiled" by contact with Medics and Missionaries bearing Gram Negative antibiotics, Vitamin and Vaccine Shots, and "What to do when there is no Doctor" books.

In Table 2, we see that on average 57 percent, 64 percent, and 67 percent of children born survive to age 15 years among hunter-gatherers, forager-
horticulturalists, and acculturated hunter-gatherers. Of those who reach age 15, 64 percent of traditional hunter-gatherers and 61 percent of forager-
horticulturalists reach age 45. The acculturated hunter-gatherers show lower young adult mortality rates, with 79 percent surviving to age 45, conditional
on reaching age 15. All groups show evidence of significant post-reproductive life among women. Mean number of expected years of life, conditional on reaching age
45, is about two decades (20.7, 19.8, and 24.6 for hunter-gatherers, forager-horticulturalists, and acculturated hunter-gatherers). Traditional hunter-gatherers and forager-horticulturalists are almost identical in the adult life course, and, on average, acculturation improves adult life expectancy

marcus says

I suppose you primarily attribute the rapid acceleration in population growth (1840 to 1950) to the increasing numbers of old people ?

We're discussing lifespan, not population growth. Societies with long lifespans constrain their own population growth within a generation or two, from Argentina to Japan to Italy. marcus says

And that just happens to coincide with the plague, right ?

Nope. Edward I Longshanks (like in the Braveheart movie), his successor Edward II (who was heir due to the death of his older brother) did not experience plague in their lives. The Black Death happened a few years into the reign of Edward III, around 1340.

you are perhaps joking, but there is actually evidence that legalized abortion is responsible for the notable drop in violent crime rate:

@Patrick, I entirely believe it. In fact, I think the evidence is very strong. If you add 18 or 20 to sometime between 1973 to 1976, you arrive in the early 90s. The last years before crime started to take a nosedive.

thunderlips11 says

For myself, I will go by repeated tests based on actual graves based on long-proven Chemistry and Forensic Medical techniques of diagnosing age from bones and teeth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleodemography

One recurring problem in paleodemography is that researchers need to publish data in uniform (or at least translatable) formats. In some cases, reliance on others' research is the only way to gather enough data to make educated inferences about the population as a whole.

Recent years have not led to significant advances in the realm of age estimation of skeletal remains. Without ways of more accurately determining age of deceased individuals, a wealth of information is locked away.

marcus says

Recent years have not led to significant advances in the realm of age estimation of skeletal remains. Without ways of more accurately determining age of deceased individuals, a wealth of information is locked away.

And my quoted studies clearly separate "Adults" and "Subadults" whose rough ages could not be determined. Of those that could be determined, 36-45 predominated. Which is damned close to the average lifespan in Central Africa and other backward, impoverished places today.

Even accepting the nice teacher who pumps up your grade by cancelling the lowest test scores, here is a handy chart, from another Study by Max Roser, which is still the go-to for Historical Demographics:

I've chosen Birth (dark blue), 1 (red), and 15 (light blue). So you can see how jiggering the "If you live to X, then you will live to Y" distorts the results.

Here's the link:

http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/life-expectancy/

Numbers are drawn from the Max Planck Institute, where I think the employees aren't too bad at math and science.

It makes no sense that our natural lifespan we evolved to have is 70 years plus, but only lifestyles and medical care of the last few decades have allowed us to finally enjoy living this full lifespan we are hard wired to have.

thunderlips11 says

Here's the link:

http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/life-expectancy/

Numbers are drawn from the Max Planck Institute, where I think the employees aren't too bad at math and science.

Seems to agree with my point of view pretty much. That is if you can remember the original argument.

marcus says

thunderlips11 says

No. Even in the Napoleonic Era, for a working class male to reach 40 was an accomplishment. Most Kings of England up till the 19th Century seldom saw more than 50 years, many saw less than 40.

You might want to do more research. Going back to antiquity it was not THAT unusual to make it to 70. There is a lot of different research on this, but many come to this conclusion.

Obviously infection or violence were far more likely to kill you before the advent of antibiotics. But I believe you are wrong and it's easy to find research that supports my opinion.

What does your common sense tell you ?

I might have been a little high in asserting that at age 20, one could expect to live to at least 50. Maybe it was only a 60% chance they made it to 45, and then at 45 the average life expectancy was another 12 to 24 years.

Thank you for finally coming around.

thunderlips11 says

Creating two kids you can't support = Exercising your right to reproduce. No More. Just like we take driver's licenses from repeat DUIs.

Agree, except make that limit to 1. Everyone is allowed to make mistake, once! After that, nobody should be allowed to inflict their mistakes on more children and taxpayers.

It's fascinating to watch these "enlightened" women who have been influenced by feminism try to fight their natural desire for the alpha male, which they absolutely despise and hate. I can see them purposefully hide the desire or overcompensate by not looking in the direction of an alpha or appearing aloof because their social conditioning tells them that they should hate it and that they should seek out nerdy, sensitive, submissive types. I saw this incessantly in Seattle when I used to live there, where woman are super "progressive" and feminist (like SF) and all date these submissive, goofy, nerdy, sensitive types...they hate the alpha male, but they hate their secret sexual desire for the alpha male even more because they can't control it. I know this because watch women when they get drunk at a club...they flock to the alphas because their inhibitions are down and their social conditioning relaxes to show through their true, natural desire. I'm sure they hate themselves the day after when they know they fellated some alpha, consumed his man-cream, and allowed all orifices to be impaled. This is what the feminazis abhor, and there's nothing they can do about it no matter how hard they try or fake it.

debyne says

It's fascinating to watch these "enlightened" women who have been influenced by feminism try to fight their natural desire for the alpha male, which they absolutely despise and hate. I can see them purposefully hide the desire or overcompensate by not looking in the direction of an alpha or appearing aloof because their social conditioning tells them that they should hate it and that they should seek out nerdy, sensitive, submissive types. I saw this incessantly in Seattle when I used to live there, where woman are super "progressive" and feminist (like SF) and all date these submissive, goofy, nerdy, sensitive types...they hate the alpha male, but they hate their secret sexual desire for the alpha male even more because they can't control it.

Which makes the lives of their beta male-appendices hell because they naturally despise them while they naturally desire the alpha and so they have to lash out at their bfs to compensate because the alpha gives zero fucks and walks away. During my time in the bay area I have countless times witnessed angry violent femmes throw out their bfs, just throwing all their stuff on the street while bitching and yelling, 0 times I have witnessed the opposite - obviously this is anecdotal evidence ;)

All of these women who have denied their true alpha hunger, will find themselves one day, without knowing why, walking into a biker bar in a negligee and propping themselves on the bar with their legs behind their heads.

female chimps apparently remain fertile as long as they live. no menopause.

there's a theory that human females have menopause because at some point a woman's genes are better off being a grandmother to help take care of grandkids rather than attempting to directly produce more children on her own, due to the high investment that human children require.

female chimps apparently remain fertile as long as they live. no menopause.

there's a theory that human females have menopause because at some point a woman's genes are better off being a grandmother to help take care of grandkids rather than attempting to directly produce more children on her own, due to the high investment that human children require.

Most women in the old days did not live till 50 to experience menopause, so the people at that time may not even have been aware of menopause.
Entirely possible female chimps could start to experience menopause if they started living longer.
Taking care of the grandkids is also a reason why women live longer.

female chimps apparently remain fertile as long as they live

CIC's one contribution to science is extensive research in this field.

Can't think of a comeback, hypocrite?

...says the guy with three times as many dislikes despite clicking dislike on every post made by any person who ever challenged his idiotic and bigoted ideology.

thunderlips11 says

Seriously, though, if Beta Males were so undesirable, there sure are a lot of them, many with kids of their own. And yeah, some of them were tricked, but there are just too many kids who look like their dad to believe it's extremely high..

Maybe. But have you noticed how in your parents and grandparents generation, your relatives would always talk, often in front of or to their (grand)children, about who the (grand)child looked like, mother or father? When I was a kid, I could never understand why this was such a popular topic of discussion. But about 20 years ago, it suddenly dawned on me: If a child looks like it's father, everything is ok. If a child looks like it's mother, things may still be ok. If a child looks neither like it's father nor mother, then chances are a different person is the real father. Whether people knew explicitly why they were interested in this topic I do not know. This game of who-do-you-look-like was also more popular on the father's side of the family, and tellingly, also more popular among the women.

So, yeah, there was always social controls in place to check whether the children had the right father. And that would explain why many beta Males have children of their own. But there are plenty of bastards running around, at least 11% of children are according to a study from families from Beverly Hills (google it).

Related to justme's post, scientific studies have shown that the parents of the mother are highly more likely to say that a baby looks like the father. This is a defense mechanism to get the "father" to support the child regardless of whether or not it is his child. Evolution has finely honed this instinct.