What is your explanation of ------?

So, less than a 100 yrs ago, the average lifespan of a person was 47. Back then, the plethora of chemicals in today's foods, water and environment were not in existence. Neither were the mega-doses of pharmaceuticals. Most people had their own gardens that they depended on for food. I understand that we are living longer but our quality of life is diminishing as we age. I can't seem to understand why 100 yrs. ago people only lived that long, given a simple, toxin-free life ...... and then why we are living longer??

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by christine on July 1, 2009 at 10:54am: LMAO; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by TimG on July 2, 2009 at 12:40am: Bobby:

Hey, I don't mind looking like a dummy when it's well-deserved.

Glad I could amuse others as well. ;); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by treesha on July 1, 2009 at 9:23am: Genetically Modified (GM) foods may be shortening our lifespan (do you think this is a way for social cleansing --- keep the rich, get rid of the poor?), drugs are [barely] keeping us alive so "they" can make money. I sit in the low-income category and the only debt I have is with hospital/emergency bills that wouldn't be there most likely if I could afford to eat right and take preventative therapies.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Deni on July 1, 2009 at 8:56am: GM Boys, also referred to as : FrankenFoods... (I'm still laughing Tim, (fun, no disrespect-)
Namste; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Miodrag on July 1, 2009 at 4:02pm: Average lifespan in Africa, or anywhere where people lived naturally was 90 years. And they were healthy and vibrant whole life.

Now some retarded doctors say averagle lifespan is 80 today, WHICH IS A LIE. We are not living longer. Average lifespan is about 65 years or less today. But people today are sicker than ever before, they are zombies; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by treesha on July 1, 2009 at 5:45pm: Average Lifespan Misinformation in History
OK, let's get rid of this misnomer that "the average lifespan of humans in 1863 was 39 years old," or "...in 1900 was 43 years old," or whatever other fallacy the emails or statisticians say. I mean, it sounds like if you were 39 in the 1860's you had one foot in the grave, for Pete's sake!
Well, let's clear this mess up once and for all:
In general, folks in the 18th and 19th centuries lived nearly as long as we do today. Yes, it's true. If one would take the time to read journals of the period, or census records of long ago they would find a good majority of adults living to a ripe old age.
So why is this false information being passed around as fact? Because, technically, it is true - the average life span in 1862 may have been 39 years of age. The average lifespan. Now, take into account that, up until the mid 20th century, the infant mortality rate was pretty high. Er...I mean, very high. In some areas nearly one out of every two infants died before their first birthday. And then, from one year old to five years that percentage dropped. From five to 10 it dropped again. And so on and so forth. In other words, the older you got, the chances are you would probably see life into your 60's or 70's or even your 80's, just like today. Of course, death for women during childbirth was quite high, but we, in our modern day, have been able to prevent that situation from happening almost completely.
Yes, people did die of heart attacks, consumption (TB), cancer, pneumonia, and measles. People today die of cancer, heart attacks, and pneumonia as well. But, where 100 years ago they had consumption, we have aids. We also have a higher murder rate per capita here in the 21st century in comparison (here are some stats about this particular comment from the history news network (http://hnn.us/articles/871.html) :

By the 18th Century, colonial Americans were the most heavily armed people in the world," yet murders were "rare" and "few" involved guns "despite their wide availability."

American homicide remained low until the 1840s. Relatively modern rapid-fire weapons only became common after the Civil War when hundreds of thousands of military surplus revolvers and lever action rifles were sold. Yet, far from rising in the post-Civil War era, homicide fell off sharply from the 1870s to 1900 -- despite the 1870s mass marketing of cheap "Saturday Night Specials."
Anyhow, what it boils down to is that if you ever see any of these average lifespan stats, take them with a grain of salt and put the whole thing into its perspective.

http://passionforthepast.blogspot.com/2008/03/average-lifespan-misi...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Bobby J on July 1, 2009 at 11:29pm: Treesha,,,
It appears that you brought us full circle in this discussion.....You brought up the original question, and you set all of our asses straight with the last comment.....that's gotta be a first !!!

Good job !!!...LOL; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by treesha on July 2, 2009 at 9:20am: Well, Bobby J, that's only one blogger's view. This question was bothering me for some time now and only now, did I set out to search for answers on the internet. What I am finding out is that the statistics are basically stupid! LOL! Fact is, there are no true facts about lifespans given so many different variables, period. So to conclude this discussion, when someone comes back with a reply to those of us who preach pharmaceuticals = bad, with a bullshyte reply as we are living longer now because of pharmaceuticals, we can just tell them that that is just downright wrong!; ▶ Reply to This