What do you think?

[hedgeapple]

Some people think we are healthier than our ancestors because they say we eat better (wider variety and availability) , have better medical care, easier lives, are smarter, etc. Other people think our ancestors were healthier than we are because they ate healthier (more basic foods with higher mineral contents and less preservatives, etc), worked harder and got more exercise, lived slower, had less stress or at least stress of a different kind, and used old time doctoring methods as opposed to the downside of modern medicine (drug recalls, long term effects, etc.). Just wondering what you all think? thanks.

[suitcase_sally]

Well, we can't deny that we live longer. Also we can't deny that we are taller. Both of these things have been attributed to better food and health care.

The first time I went out west and visited one of those "ghost-town-old-wild-west" villages, I was struck by the tiny sizes of the clothes and bedding. In my ignorance, I thought the stuff was small because they were scrimping on material. Later I found out the average woman was 4' 5" and the average cowboy was 5'. The bedding industry keeps track of the height of people so as to be able to sell their product. Whoever heard of a California King bed 50 years ago?

[TxGypsy]

If I had been living 100+ years ago I'd have ended up as one of those sad little child graves that you see so many of in old cemeteries. I'd have never survived to adulthood. I think rather than seeing one way as totally right and one way as totally wrong that you should look at the good of both. Even with the screw ups, modern medicine is a miraculous thing and there is no way I'd want to live without it. However, whole foods, more exercise and less stress would be beneficial to everyone! Isn't that what homesteaders do? Take the best of the new and old and put em together.

[kuriakos]

Life expectancy is misleading because it is only an average. The increase in life expectancy is almost completely due to a decrease in infant mortality. That brought down the average until relatively recent times. And yes, advances in modern medicine are responsible for that decreased rate of infant mortality. But if you adjust to take infant mortality into account as a factor in skewing the average, most people today don't live much longer than most people a hundred years ago did.

[Pink_Carnation]

Well I looked up in wikipedia and according to the article on life expectancy someone 60 years old has a 10% improved life expectancy from 100 years ago. Not the huge gains but some gain. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for modern medicine. The key really is balance, take the good from both sides and cope with the bad as much as you can.

[treefrog]

suits of armor in european castles look like they were made for kids. we are larger.

obesity is a national problem. it never was before. overnutrition is a much higher quality problem than malnutrition. we are better fed.

we have whole states where the major industry is taking care of retirees. we live longer

we have virility enhancing drugs. (viagra, etc.) we love longer.

100 years ago, if you said the word "vitamin," people wouldn't know what language you were speaking. we have better nutrition.

100 years ago nobody had heard of insulin. diabetics died young.

there are some problems. we have not yet created heaven on earth, but on balance, we are much better off.

pax
t.f.

[Explorer]

Food was more wholesome then, more variety today. Great advances in medical treatment for both young and very old (over 65). The poor quality of food is surpassed by the increase due to medical care. I would say overall life now is more comfortable, not necessarily better.

[pancho]

Food was not really more wholesome back then. There was no refrigeration. There was less preserving food. Most food have a very limited life and much was wasted. Even the crops have been improved greatly. Livestock has been selective bred for improved production. Life is much better today and it shows in increased size, improved health, and longer lives.

[ailsaek]

I'll take today over yesterday, thanks. I have a six year old son who wouldn't have lived past two back when, and not even that far back, either. I like modern medicine very much. I also love being able to have mangoes whenever I want them.

[treefrog]

there are lots of trade offs.

don't like preservatives? would you like botulism better?

don't like high prices? do you think barter would work better? try it.

prefer fresh food? so do i. our forefathers (and foremothers) didn't eat salad in the winter.

don't like "un-natural" things? how "natural" is the computer screen you're reading this on? your refrigerator?

don't like hybrid seeds? don't buy them. it's a choice, you can save your own seed. i'm glad i have a choice.

don't like "artificial fertilisers?" seems to me building a compost pile requires quite some artifice.

don't trust the modern improvements? ned ludd probably wouldn't have either.

pax
t.f.

[KCM]

I enjoy being alive. I would think they enjoyed being alive 100 years ago too.

[hillsidedigger]

From what I have seen, the people born between 1945 and 1970

seem to be 'going downhill'

at an earlier age

than did people born between 1920 and 1945.

[Junkmanme]

I was born in 1948. My Father was born in 1913 . His Father was born in 1882. His Father was born in 1854. (Two of his brothers fought for the South in the Civil War. One of them died of a wound.....one that would be "insignificant" today.)

I will be 60 years old on my next birthday. My Father died of heart-attack at age 54.
(I have had 5 heart-attacks...the Doctors say 2 or 3).
My Father's Father died about age 33 of Tuberculosis....(We see very little of it now in USA....it WAS a BIG KILLER back then!)
My Grandfather lived to be about 75 years old....people said he was MEAN.....he would "run-off" his children after they were grown when they came to "visit" at his farm. I've heard it said that he would say something like: "I've got work to do, don't YOU have something you can be doing? Bye!" I think a lot of the family was afraid of that old man. But, an uncle of mine, good man, said he liked the old man. Said he just did what he wanted to do. (North Carolina hillbilly).

I really don't know whether the old days were better or worse.....

WHAT I DO KNOW IS....

It's more complicated now...but it is easier for the average person who has some education and employment capabilities. (It must have bee terrible for the families in the "old days" if they had a child who couldn't find or do work.)

My health is better than it should be because I live in an "easier world".

Who really knows where the values are. CERTAINLY NOT a PREACHER! (they're speculatin')

It's really anybody's guess.

My guess is:

"All in All, We of my generation, have been very Fortunate."

just my 2 centavos worth,
Bruce

[MoonShine]

Originally Posted by TxGypsy

Take the best of the new and old and put em together.

That's a good idea! I can see pros and cons of then and now.

[Farmerwilly2]

Women smell better and shave their legs (for the most part)now. That's good enough for me.

[donsgal]

Originally Posted by hedgeapple

Some people think we are healthier than our ancestors because they say we eat better (wider variety and availability) , have better medical care, easier lives, are smarter, etc. Other people think our ancestors were healthier than we are because they ate healthier (more basic foods with higher mineral contents and less preservatives, etc), worked harder and got more exercise, lived slower, had less stress or at least stress of a different kind, and used old time doctoring methods as opposed to the downside of modern medicine (drug recalls, long term effects, etc.). Just wondering what you all think? thanks.

I think that until something went wrong that our ancestors were generally, physically healthier than we are. However, because of improved medical care I think that when something goes arwy our chances of recovering from it are much greater and therefore we can expect to enjoy a longer and overall healthier life.

donsgal

[donsgal]

Originally Posted by kuriakos

Life expectancy is misleading because it is only an average. The increase in life expectancy is almost completely due to a decrease in infant mortality. That brought down the average until relatively recent times. And yes, advances in modern medicine are responsible for that decreased rate of infant mortality. But if you adjust to take infant mortality into account as a factor in skewing the average, most people today don't live much longer than most people a hundred years ago did.

A lot of people get life expectancy confused with life span. The life span of mankind has not changed in more than 10,000 years (for the non-creationists in the audience YMMV). The as Kuriakos illustrates, the life expectancy is almost exclusively determined by the infant mortality rate. Statistically there are as many old people alive today (in their eighties and nineties), based on the per capital population as there were in the 1600s and 1700s and even before that even thought the "life expectancy" since those dates have lengthened dramtacally.

donsgal

[FrankTheTank]

If i'm still around, i would love to see how this obesity epidemic plays out in about 30-40 years. It'll probably be the straw that breaks medicare's back.
I doubt you saw many fat people back in early America.

You can still eat healthy today, you just have to be very picky!

More doesn't mean better.

[MWG]

Originally Posted by Farmerwilly2

Women smell better and shave their legs (for the most part)now. That's good enough for me.

Maybe that is why we are living longer!

[Peacock]

Depends. If you were healthy, you were REALLY healthy. If you had any kind of medical problem at all - something congenital, or a disease - forget it, you were as good as gone.

Everything that helped us has a price -- and everything that hurt us had a benefit to someone lucky enough to enjoy it.

If you believe in Darwin's ideas, we're doomed. The easier life gets, the more susceptible a species becomes to adverse conditions.