If the average lifespan of a human throughout history was only ~30, at what age did they reproduce?

Colon capital V

Loudest, biggest, most nuclear-size Brap above me
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 13, 2022
Because if they had children at say, 20, then their children would be around teen age when they die.
cwdpDwFN4E.png
Surely most of them didn't mate when both or one of the partners was only a teen, no?
 
I think people read that and get the wrong idea, the reason the average lifespan was so short was because child mortality rates were much higher. For every person who lived to 60 they might have had 7 children and 3 of them died within the first year of life and 2 died in their teenage years. I'm sure someone can explain it better than I can.
 
Even when the average lifespan was 30, most people who survived into adulthood still lived till they were in their 50'ies and sixties.

And we dont know when they reproduced. In Northern Europe in the 1600s the average time of marriage was 23 for women and 26 for men. I don't know any earlier data.
 
As mentioned above, it's infant mortality rates, as well as accidents that would be considered non-fatal today that make that statistic. Lifespan was pretty consistent with today. You're always coming across accounts of people from the past who lived into their 80 and 90s even. It's just that sickness and injury were more fatal more often compared to now.

I also suspect that average age of getting married and having kids was actually pretty static too. The political marriages of the upper crust that make people gasp were outliers and often weren't consummated until much later. Peasants had no real reason to marry their daughters young as it meant losing a helper, remember that most work people did was located around the family home in much of the past until the industrial revolution. Losing a daughter to another family was likely put off as long as possible to be honest. Also, people aren't fucking retarded. They know how to recognize patterns and they for sure knew risk was greater for a very young pregnancy. They wouldn't have wanted it or seen it as a good outcome. I don't know why everyone is so set on thinking everyone before 1950 thought fourteen year olds being preggo was totes cool.
 
Ugh this shit again

The life expectancy was low because most people died as children. Even odds of dying before 5. When you look at the life expectancy conditional on making it to five it booms to far closer to the modern day. The average year of death was not the same as the median year of death (most common/likely year).

People didn’t drop dead in middle age. You had a bunch of dead (extra) babies and toddlers and then a normal population with young, middle, old.

This graph sums it up. Everybody’s life expectancies increased during the modern world, but most of the gains were for young children.
IMG_9828.png
 
yeah, baby death brought down the average but if you made it past 5 you had a decent shot at making it to 60+ even in ancient times.

As for when people had kids 10,000 years ago it was probably just whenever puberty was since they didn't have contraception of any kind. The first recorded evidence of "marriage" at least in any way we'd recognize it today was like 4,000 years ago iirc so human relationships 6,000 years before that aren't as well known. I assume people basically just lived like dogs so asking what age people reproduced 10,000 years ago is like asking what age stray dogs reproduce and the answer is just whenever they are able to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef
Another way of looking at this stuff is to ask what your conditional life expectancy is AT the life expectancy.

From my graph, IF you make it 80 you're going to make it 85 on average. There's only about five years left to go.
On the other hand, for that 1850 person, IF you make it to 40 then you'll make it to about 65 on average, or fifteen years left.

That gives a good sense of the difference in how people died. In the past people died more of epidemic disease, injuries, disasters, and other things that hit randomly, leading to a much wider range of death years for any given group of people.

Nowadays, much more death is that of old age/conditions of old age (lifestyle/poor health that waits until late in life to really manifest, lot more cancers and heart disease and such), so people expect to die at a certain age.

It's basically necessary that if you have people dying over a wider range of time that your life expectancy would be lower, because anything below the maximum just drags the number down.
 
Ugh this shit again

The life expectancy was low because most people died as children. Even odds of dying before 5. When you look at the life expectancy conditional on making it to five it booms to far closer to the modern day. The average year of death was not the same as the median year of death (most common/likely year).

People didn’t drop dead in middle age. You had a bunch of dead (extra) babies and toddlers and then a normal population with young, middle, old.

This graph sums it up. Everybody’s life expectancies increased during the modern world, but most of the gains were for young children.
View attachment 6021366
Well you did a bang up job explaining it, so thanks for that. What is amazing is how child mortality has been almost completely wiped out largely by medical advances.
 
Well you did a bang up job explaining it, so thanks for that. What is amazing is how child mortality has been almost completely wiped out largely by medical advances.
It goes underappreciated too, for the same reason things like abortion don't prey on people's minds much. I get aggravated just because it's such a common misconception, I didn't know better until recently, though I did know old people existed so it couldn't have been that bad. But the thing is, although that mass death was mostly concentrated on babies, they were the majority of people. That's absolutely insane to think about, on several levels.

First, that the "average" person, at least if we're thinking in terms of the demographics of Heaven, was a little kid.

Secondly, child death was not just common, not just accepted, but the rule, and was so up until very recently. Not just childbirth, actual children. We freak out about it nowadays, it's a huge tragedy if a kid dies. Back then you EXPECT your children to die.

I would ponder what it would be like to be a kid in a world where you know, because they drop like flies around you, that you too are most likely going to die. But then I realized that two and three year olds are probably too simpleminded to pick up on that concept?

Roll the dice on reincarnation, again and again, and most of the time you never make it to puberty. It'd be like an endless Sisyphean cycle of childhood.
 
I think people read that and get the wrong idea, the reason the average lifespan was so short was because child mortality rates were much higher. For every person who lived to 60 they might have had 7 children and 3 of them died within the first year of life and 2 died in their teenage years. I'm sure someone can explain it better than I can.
Its the same why average life span of animals is usually reported as relatively short. Its always high offspring mortality. Doesn't say anything about the number and average age of successfully matured individuals, which would probably a more interesting stat.
 
Kill yourself pedo
No stalker child, I'm not the one who insinuated that teens should or would have mated in order to push the human race forward. That's the AF Groyper pipedream version of it, I was just asking if the soyence reflected reality given the graphs and data that they put together. Seeing as how YOU assume I'm a pedo for questioning the soyence is telling enough, enjoy prison.
 
No, what differentiated homo sapiens from other primates around 300,000 years ago was a genetic mutation, which we all now carry, which prevents the mating instinct from activating until the eighteenth birthday. Even before we developed settlements and agriculture, fossil evidence shows that human mating behavior didn't commence until eighteen revolutions about the sun. That's why, unlike our close cousins, chimpanzees and bonobos, adolescent males and females show zero interest in each other. It's also why every human society in all of history has defined the age of majority at eighteen.

Only a pedophile disagrees with any of this.
 
Back