This is some STUPID shit. Who the fuck is so dumb to think that life expectancy was 25 years in 1800? You have to be dense.

Full sized image is clicking the thread title. 1618 x 2299

https://media.scored.co/post/NZrRWyiE4QvI.jpeg

Was thinking.. back in the old days, that was it when they got to my age. Thought I saw a chart a few years ago. I think a lot of this was the child mortality rate. Seems pretty sketchy though. What about if you go before 1800 when people were all crowded in cities. Although, they probably didn't know about "nutrition" and how you have to eat your various food groups. They'd just eat like rice and that's it. I don't know. This seems a little sketchy. 

The user is asking about historical life expectancy, specifically before 1800, and is referencing a chart they remember seeing. They correctly identify that high child mortality rates likely skewed the data. They also ask about the impact of crowded cities and nutrition, suggesting that pre-modern diets were limited to things like just rice.

I will structure my response to address these points directly:

Acknowledge the user's correct assumption about child mortality. Explain how it's the primary reason for low average life expectancy at birth.

Provide context for life expectancy before 1800. I'll use the search results to explain that life expectancy at birth in pre-modern and early modern periods (1500s-1800s) was typically in the 30s or low 40s.

Explain the "urban penalty." Address their question about crowded cities. I'll explain that cities were indeed dangerous "demographic sinks" due to poor sanitation, overcrowding, and the spread of infectious diseases, and that this led to significantly lower life expectancy compared to rural areas.

Discuss the role of nutrition. Address their point about "just eating rice." I'll explain that while pre-modern diets were often limited and lacked the variety we have today, people in different regions had diets that could be surprisingly nutrient-rich, supplemented by things like foraged foods, livestock, and local produce. However, malnutrition was still a major factor contributing to disease and early death.

Summarize the key factors. Conclude with a clear summary of the main reasons for low life expectancy before the modern era, which were a combination of high infant mortality, infectious diseases, poor sanitation, and nutritional deficiencies.

I have all the information I need from the search results to answer the user's questions comprehensively and accurately. I will not need to request the image of the chart, as the user's description of it is enough to understand the context of their question, and the search results provide the data for the time periods they are asking about.You're on the right track with your thinking. The sketchy feeling you have about the numbers is because "life expectancy at birth" can be a very misleading statistic for historical periods.

You are correct that high child mortality rates were the main reason for low life expectancy in the past. While a person's average lifespan in 1800 might have been around 30-40 years, if you survived childhood, your chances of living to an older age were much higher. For example, someone who made it to age five might have had a good chance of living to their 50s, 60s, or even 70s, though reaching very old age was less common than it is today. The overall average was pulled down drastically by the deaths of many infants and young children from diseases and malnutrition.

Life Before 1800 The patterns you noticed were even more pronounced before the 1800s. For most of human history, from ancient civilizations to the early modern period, life expectancy at birth was consistently low, generally ranging from 20 to 40 years. This stagnation lasted for millennia.

The main factors contributing to this were:

Infectious Diseases: Widespread and often fatal diseases like smallpox, cholera, measles, and typhoid fever were rampant and a leading cause of death for all age groups, especially children.

Poor Sanitation: In your reference to people crowded in cities, you've hit on a key point. Pre-modern cities were "demographic sinks"—meaning more people died than were born in them. Overcrowding, a lack of clean water, and the inadequate disposal of human and animal waste created an ideal environment for diseases to spread rapidly. This is known as the "urban penalty," and it meant that until the 19th century, people in cities generally had a shorter life expectancy than those in the countryside.

Nutrition: Your intuition about nutrition is also correct, but the reality was often more complex than just eating one food. Diets were typically monotonous and heavily reliant on a few staple crops like grains or rice. While people often supplemented their diets with what they could forage or raise (like chickens), and some diets could be surprisingly nutrient-rich, malnutrition was still widespread. Nutritional deficiencies weakened the immune system, making people more vulnerable to diseases. The transition from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming one, which began thousands of years ago, actually led to a decline in overall health and an increase in nutritional deficiencies and diseases tied to agriculture.

The chart you remember seeing likely shows how life expectancy in the modern era began to take off, driven by improvements in public health, sanitation, nutrition, and eventually, medical advancements like vaccines and antibiotics.

Well, how about when they used to catch "scurvy" when going on long boat trips. I guess in those days they didn't know how things functioned. That one has to do with "food groups". Like you gotta have "fruit". I think it's just a vitamin C deficiency. What do you got on this one?

You've brought up a perfect example that highlights how much our understanding of nutrition has changed. You're exactly right—scurvy is a classic case of a vitamin C deficiency, and it was a massive problem on long sea voyages.

Here's a breakdown of the history and science behind it:

The Problem on the High Seas For centuries, scurvy was a terrifying and mysterious disease that killed more sailors than storms, shipwrecks, and battles combined. A long sea voyage meant a diet consisting almost entirely of non-perishable food like salted meat, hardtack (a type of biscuit), and grains. Without any fresh fruits or vegetables, the body's store of vitamin C would be used up.

Scurvy symptoms are horrific and dramatic:

Initial signs are fatigue, depression, and aching limbs.

As the deficiency worsens, sailors would develop spongy, bleeding gums; their teeth would loosen and fall out; and old wounds would reopen.

The skin would become covered in blotchy, purplish spots from bleeding under the surface.

Ultimately, the disease would lead to fever, convulsions, and death.

The reason for this is what you mentioned: vitamin C deficiency. Vitamin C is essential for the body to produce collagen, a vital protein that acts as a kind of "glue" to hold together connective tissues, skin, and blood vessels. When the body can't make collagen, it literally starts to fall apart.

The Search for a Cure The solution was actually known by many sailors and some observant doctors long before the medical establishment fully accepted it. There were countless anecdotal accounts of eating citrus fruits or certain foraged plants ("scurvy grass") curing the disease.

The true breakthrough came in 1747 with a Scottish naval surgeon named James Lind. Aboard the HMS Salisbury, he conducted what is considered one of the first controlled clinical trials in medical history. He took 12 sailors suffering from scurvy and divided them into six pairs, giving each pair a different daily remedy:

Cider

Diluted sulfuric acid (a common remedy at the time)

Vinegar

Seawater

A spicy paste

Two oranges and one lemon

The results were astonishingly clear: the two sailors who ate the oranges and lemons were cured of their symptoms within six days. While it took decades for the British Royal Navy to formally adopt Lind's findings—they started issuing a daily ration of lemon juice in 1795—it eventually led to the disease being virtually eliminated from the navy. This is also how British sailors earned the nickname "Limeys."

You're absolutely right in your assessment: they didn't understand the underlying function—the "vitamin C" and "collagen" part—but through practical experience and observation, they eventually figured out the cure was to get a "fruit" into the diet. This shows how scientific understanding can sometimes lag behind empirical evidence, and how a basic dietary need could have such a profound impact on human history.

Life Expectancy is a sign of supremacy

A supreme race of people would likely live longer lives. Which is great. Time alive is precious. Being able to survive the elements. White people excel. Evidence of White Supremacy. REEEEEEEEE but i look at the data. Don't care if it hurts someone's feelings.