Previously human mortality meant we were probably dead by 30/40 so marrying and having kids very young made sense then when you also had a dozen children because half of them would die to polio and the other half would just be horribly disfigured. By polio.
Also the fuck is up with this whole comment chain? Every post has -12 somehow according to my screen yet the totals points for many posts aren't in the negatives. 🤔
Previously human mortality meant we were probably dead by 30/40
That's a widely held misconception made by completely bad statistics. Infant mortality was sky high in those days. But if you managed to make it a few years, you'd generally live until your mid 50s, which is where lifespans tapered off quick. By just doing low effort math you'd see a bad picture by keeping those infants in.
And while your 50s is still young compared to now, that's probably the intended age for humans to die in evolutionarily. Its right when we start to nosedive physically and mentally to a point where most would be outright useless in a society that was full of scarcity. We only push that back now due to incredibly increased nutrition and technology, but most still start that decline shortly after.
You'd still start young having kids because of how many died, but it was nothing to do with your own life expectancy. It was just always a gamble with every kid making it past their first few years, so you'd want to run the numbers as many times as possible to protect your future.
By polio.
Funnily enough polio, despite existing since prehistory and being noted in Egyptian times at some of the earliest, was only a minor endemic disease for human history. It wasn't until 1900 that that changed and it became the monster it was for a few decades.
Children back in the day didn't need fancy diseases to be their main cause of death. Most just straight died of colds or SIDS.
Previously human mortality meant we were probably dead by 30/40 so marrying and having kids very young made sense then when you also had a dozen children because half of them would die to polio and the other half would just be horribly disfigured. By polio.
Also the fuck is up with this whole comment chain? Every post has -12 somehow according to my screen yet the totals points for many posts aren't in the negatives. 🤔
That's a widely held misconception made by completely bad statistics. Infant mortality was sky high in those days. But if you managed to make it a few years, you'd generally live until your mid 50s, which is where lifespans tapered off quick. By just doing low effort math you'd see a bad picture by keeping those infants in.
And while your 50s is still young compared to now, that's probably the intended age for humans to die in evolutionarily. Its right when we start to nosedive physically and mentally to a point where most would be outright useless in a society that was full of scarcity. We only push that back now due to incredibly increased nutrition and technology, but most still start that decline shortly after.
You'd still start young having kids because of how many died, but it was nothing to do with your own life expectancy. It was just always a gamble with every kid making it past their first few years, so you'd want to run the numbers as many times as possible to protect your future.
Funnily enough polio, despite existing since prehistory and being noted in Egyptian times at some of the earliest, was only a minor endemic disease for human history. It wasn't until 1900 that that changed and it became the monster it was for a few decades.
Children back in the day didn't need fancy diseases to be their main cause of death. Most just straight died of colds or SIDS.