Before Modern Medicine, and Other Links

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Kurt says:

    “Does the smell of a rose depend on you genes?”

    -I don’t think roses smell that amazing.

  2. Bolton says:

    I think its amazing Sweden has data good enough to determine life expectancy in the 1750s

  3. Ashley says:

    We did need a study to show this:

    “They note that physically attractive people are judged by others as friendlier, more likeable, and more socially appealing than physically unattractive people; they’re also treated better by others than unattractive individuals, even at work.”

    • Afton says:

      “While you might’ve been told as a child that it’s “what’s on the inside” that counts, it’s now very clear that “what’s on the outside” counts just as much, at least around the water cooler.”

      Cute little joke

      • Gary says:

        Yeah, they needed to do a study on it because society has been trying to change people’s perception on this topic for years. Hence “it’s what’s on the inside that counts”. Even though, that is completely factually inaccurate.

  4. Howard says:

    Same abuse in schools is carried over to work environments. People just do not know how to grow up and their co-workers suffer.

  5. Buster says:

    In Sweden in 1751 — well before the modern mortality decline — it was riskier to be a newborn than to be an 80 year old.

    Historically, children only had about a 50% to 65% chance of making it to their 5th birthday. Life expectancy was higher in some areas (and some periods of history) and lower in others.

    History records that life expectancy was only something like 40 to 45 years a couple hundred years ago. But if you actually made it to adulthood, you stood a pretty good chance of surviving into what we consider today to be old age. But, then again, as recently as 1935 Social Security was based on the premise that most workers wouldn’t make it much past their 65th birthday.