this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
609 points (99.5% liked)

History Memes

2801 readers
731 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Piefed.social rules.

  5. History referenced must be 20+ years old.

  6. Avoid posting AI-generated content whenever possible.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
PugJesus@piefed.social
Deceptichum@quokk.au
PugJesus@lemmy.world
609
Excellent point... (lemmy.nz)
submitted 1 month ago by LadyButterfly@piefed.blahaj.zone to c/historymemes@piefed.social
89 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sus@programming.dev 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

No, half the people died in early childhood and most of the rest lived for around 40-70 years. Agriculture also sometimes made life expectancies worse, even in the year 1900 life expectancy globally was still less than 35.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Year 1900 life expectancy seems like it would be more severely impacted by industrialization than agriculture. But yeah, hunter-gatherers don't just drop dead at 32.

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago

I think one thing that kept life expectancies low was high child mortality, that will skew the average downwards. Unless they were accounting for that measured separately