At 08:46 AM 4/23/2010 -0500, you wrote:
I believe you are mistaken about this. The AVERAGE lifespan has increased
versus 100 years ago, but this is largely because of eradication of
childhood diseases and better quality water, etc. 100 years ago LOTS of
folks made it their 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's, but they were healthier and
more active at that age than their same-aged contemporaries. Lots of
people are living longer today but with lower quality of life in their
senior years (eg. nursing homes).
## Ok, let's go fuzzy with "lots of" [Granted, the stats are crap ]
More people live longer now *because of* nursing homes and other aid.
*because of* the world changing
OF COURSE those that made it to 90 were more active in the old days *in
spite of* the world as it was, but per capita a lot fewer of them when 65
was *culturally* considered ancient even in the absence of specific
statistics to give a given culture a precise un-scewed number that defined
old age in terms of old age.
I reckon we'll have to settle for a "feel" of a culture by reading old
stories about those times as people wrote about "being about done in", what
they planned to do next and how long they managed to do it...begging the
question, did oldsters that didn't feel done in, write about it?
Just can't get a definitive answer, dang it.
A blurb on todays culture:
Sociologists expect that the baby boomers are likely to extend midlife well
into what used to be considered "old age." They will continue to work
longer, and responsibilities such as paying for college or having children
at home already are extending to older ages. They also are likely to enjoy
better health and remain "actively engaged" longer than previous
generations. The seniors of the senior class, the group 85 and older, is
currently the fastest-growing segment of the entire population, with
expected growth from 4 million people
A mention of 1804 [Did that writer read the above?]
If a person lived to their 20s they were just about as likely to reach 70
or even 80 as today's population.
But even if true, the original thread on radiation has no value as there
has been no appreciable change since before cell phones [or modern farming
for that matter ] and anything below that no change is irrelevant.
ie Even if they didn't die younger if they made it past their 20s, neither
do we. But better nutrition and health care may be countering more radiation?
Or not living past their 20s made for very strong old folx and we no longer
do much weeding and are better at keeping weaker people going strong.
Too many factors and not enough info to figger it.
ode
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Ode Coyote
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]> wrote:
The fact is STILL that people live longer healthier lives than they used
to, both *because of* AND *in spite of* the world changing.
--
Alan Jones
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people." (Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution)
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.html
Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:[email protected]>
List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:[email protected]>
