I know certain people will be tempted, but the good stuff please...

 

 

It was fine up until his last statement!  Can we keep 🧠 🪱 out of it, please!

Wellllll....

He's leaving out, or doesn't know about, a few important factors regarding lifespans in the past.

Based on some things I've read over the years, and I haven't done a lot of research on this but it makes sense, the average person did not die before 35 or 40 before the 20th century.  Many people actually did live into old age, IE over 70, although certainly less than nowadays.

There is no question that medical and pharmaceutical science has increased lifespans over the past 100 years, as many people died from things that we can cure now with surgery or drugs.  People also live longer now due to better hygiene, better quality water and food, and better nutrition.

He's talking about the *average* lifespan.  A few hundred years ago, a lot of people died from a simple cut which got infected or from a myriad of other infections which we can cure lickety split nowadays.  Many women died during child birth, which heavily skews the age of death when you calculate an average.

His point is valid that science has increased our lifespan, but he's exaggerating a bit.  Too bad he had to inject his you-know-what into it, which destroys his credibility on many other subjects.

Dave

 

Edited July 30, 2025Jul 30 by dave2013

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

  A few hundred years ago, a lot of people died from a simple cut which got infected or from a myriad of other infections which we can cure lickety split nowadays.  

 Too bad he had to inject his you-know-what into it, which destroys his credibility on many other subjects.

You really make his point quite well. Health science has taught us to avoid, or quickly cure, some very basic diseases that aren't very complicated. It just needed someone to get to the bottom of it to find a cure, and that's what scientists do.

If I am not mistaken, it was the host who made the injection. I think it is a fact that certain simple medical procedure save millions of lives every year, but I don't want to start a debate on this here. 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Wellllll....

....

 Too bad he had to inject his you-know-what into it, which destroys his credibility on many other subjects.

It was the host, and not NDT, that introduced the political aspect into the discussion.
Some could argue that such an error in comprehension of a short video could destroy your credibility on many other subjects.

FOR THE RECORD - I am personally  NOT claiming your credibility is shot on many other subjects over this example, but I do want to highlight that accuracy and detail in any scientific research AND, any counterpoint raised/discusses MUST also adhere to the same levels of accuracy and scrutiny, if the argument is to stand. 

Oh dear Lord.

I couldn't care less about the comment at the end.  It wasn't even political, and it's likely the host doesn't even like the guy.

What chaps my derriere is talking about life spans by averaging two disparate groups.  From everything I've learned, there was a very high infant mortality rate.  Getting an average life span by averaging those dying as infants and those dying as adults is like getting an average of gender.  (Male + Female) / 2.  

NDT lost my respect long ago.  I'll allow him his schtick, but I don't have to listen to him.

Hook

3 minutes ago, LHookins said:

What chaps my derriere is talking about life spans by averaging two disparate groups.  From everything I've learned, there was a very high infant mortality rate.  Getting an average life span by averaging those dying as infants and those dying as adults is like getting an average of gender.  (Male + Female) / 2.  

'Average' lifespan is an extremely loaded statistic.

Average lifespan in medieval England was around thirty eight. Such was the high rate of infant mortality, for those that made it past their fifth birthday average life expectancy climbed to around fifty two.

For this group, in pre-industrial, agrarian England life expectancy was governed by hygiene and diet...or the lack of it.

However, if you were born into that strata of society that received the best of the best then things looked considerably brighter....

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1102957/life-expectancy-english-aristocracy/

Aristotle died at 62.
Plato died at 80-81.
Socrates died at 71, and not from natural causes.
Diogenes died at 81 or 90.  This famous cynic lived in a "jar" in town.  If you remember his name, it's because he carried a lighted lantern during the day to "search for an honest man."

Child mortality and adult disease were the great levelers. Sometimes war contributed.

Someone in the comments talked about fever.  Before antibiotics the only method they had to control infection was fever.  I heard this when I was young from an old doctor and have verified it since. 

Archeologists have found human bones indicating advanced age.  This was considered something of a milestone on the rise from primitive to modern human, as keeping elder members alive when they needed support rather then having them contribute physically was an indicator of civilization.

"Gad, what they teach in schools these days!!" -- R. Heinlein  🙂

Hook

Edited July 31, 2025Jul 31 by LHookins

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

Aristotle died at 62.
Plato died at 80-81.
Socrates died at 71, and not from natural causes.

I didn't watch the video yet but reading the comment I guess I know what its about.

Adam lived to be 930 and many of his children, grand children, great grand children and great great grand children I think lived to be nearly 1000 years old too.🤣

20 minutes ago, FBW737 said:

I didn't watch the video yet but reading the comment I guess I know what its about.

Adam lived to be 930 and many of his children, grand children, great grand children and great great grand children I think lived to be nearly 1000 years old too.🤣

Does that mean that someone could claim that, as we no longer live into our 900's, that science has actually REDUCED our lifespan? 🙂 

Edited July 31, 2025Jul 31 by c912039

1 hour ago, FBW737 said:

Adam lived to be 930

And Methuselah lived to be 969.  He was the oldest.

I discussed this with my Jewish nephrologist and he agreed:  Before the flood the sky was covered in clouds and you could not see the sun.  There was no good way to measure the annual cycles in that part of the world.  But the moon's change of phases was obvious.  I speculated that "969" was "lunar periods" (months) rather than years.

Men were having their first child at age 120.  Try to imagine that.  Age 10 is actually more believable, and yes, it is possible.  An age of 969 months is 81 years.

After the flood we could see the sun and could measure in years.  You'll notice that the extreme long lifespans ended after Noah and became what we are used to today.

I wanted to discuss this with my wife's Baptist preacher, but it was impossible.  I used to discuss such things with my highly educated Catholic friend.  I was thinking that this could be a proof that the flood happened.

I consider this subject to be more science than religion.

Hook

Edited July 31, 2025Jul 31 by LHookins
fixed my numbers

3 hours ago, LHookins said:

Aristotle died at 62.
Plato died at 80-81.
Socrates died at 71, and not from natural causes.
Diogenes died at 81 or 90.  This famous cynic lived in a "jar" in town.  If you remember his name, it's because he carried a lighted lantern during the day to "search for an honest man."

...

Ah, yes, the "Existence of outliers totally destroys any averages calculation" argument.

Similar to the old argument "Smoking doesnt cause cancer, my Granny smoked everyday and lived till 80".

14 minutes ago, c912039 said:

Ah, yes, the "Existence of outliers totally destroys any averages calculation" argument.

Actually, I just picked a few at random whose names I knew.  I had no idea they'd lived that long before looking them up.  I admit to surprise.  These are not "cherry picked".

I was really surprised at Diogenes.  I thought his ascetic lifestyle might have shortened it.

Go pick a few yourself.  Note:  Nero died at 30, but by his own hand.

Hook

Edited July 31, 2025Jul 31 by LHookins

Some very good points made regarding infant mortality lowering the average.

It is true, of course, that lifespan has improved at all ages. 

16 hours ago, qqwertz said:

You really make his point quite well. Health science has taught us to avoid, or quickly cure, some very basic diseases that aren't very complicated.

I did say his point about science increasing lifespans was valid.  However, his explanation and description of it was somewhat misleading, probably not intentionally.

My point is that our longer average lifespans are due *not* primarily to recent advances in surgery and drugs, but to more simple health-related knowledge about infections and bacteria and such - and, yes, this is also a result of "science".  If people 500 years ago had simply cleaned a flesh wound with clean water and bandaged it, knew not to eat rotten food, not to drink unclean water, and washed their hands, the average lifespan would not have been much less than it is now. 

There's no need for advanced medical science of the later 20th century to make a huge difference in this regard, but we're supposed to believe that our recent and exorbitantly expensive advanced medical treatments and drugs are the main reason - not so.

Dave