Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trying to connect being off grid with living to 40 is a logical fallacy.
As for the numbers, being a historian I've studied this enough. Just researching my own family history has shown what I said, a trip to the local graveyards from the 19th century to study the ages at death will also confirm what I said...
But in any case, people were not dropping like flies when they hit 40 back then.
As a historian, you will know that people who make history are people who accomplish things. And, the longer one lives, the more likely they are to be in the history books. Actually, people did drop like flies as they approached 40. And, my point was not that they all died from wood stove smoke consequences, it was a comment made in opposition to the incorrect statement, the import of which was that if we lived our lives like the pioneers of the past we would be safer, healthier, happier, etc. Actually, I was a student of history too and the period of pre industrial America which is what many folks fondly fantasize about, was a hard, dangerous, oppressive time. A time when the biggest cause of death other than childbirth among women was death by fire from wood stoves. And life was so hard that alcohol was consumed by nearly everyone to manage the pain of daily life in 1800. Let's not go back there, please. I could post more, but why? It was a horrible time. Glad we have made progress and I'm glad to be living in the era of detergent and pennicillan and electric washers and refrigerators.
Two of my aunts ( born in the late 1800's ) lived to 90
However, 2 aunts and 2 uncles never made 40.
One aunt died from the 1918 flue outbreak as a 33 year old school teacher in North Dakota
One uncle ( farmer) died from pnuemonia at age 38.
My take on longevity is that people did live to old age years ago.
The life expectancy got skewed because of the many that died young from things that we don't worry about today.
Two of my aunts ( born in the late 1800's ) lived to 90
However, 2 aunts and 2 uncles never made 40.
One aunt died from the 1918 flue outbreak as a 33 year old school teacher in North Dakota
One uncle ( farmer) died from pnuemonia at age 38.
My take on longevity is that people did live to old age years ago.
The life expectancy got skewed because of the many that died young from things that we don't worry about today.
Life was hard. They died at birth, they died as toddlers, teenagers and young adults. And, added all up life expectancy in 1830 was around 40. And if they made it to age two it was about 44. And, as posted above, if they made it to age 10 it was about 58 in 1850. Again, it was not a box of chocolates. People who had to fish every week to eat fell through the ice now and then. and women caught on fire in front of wood stoves, and people got bacteria and viruses that they either beat or they died, and horses kicked them and they got trapped in the snow and starved. Life was really, really hard in 1800 America.
Well I am no ludite. I use what I can get, when I can get it. I(f the power goes off I adapt and well. It isn't a big deal for me to make fire, cook and boil water if I must. Most of the boiled water goes into taking a shower, or brewing coffee.
I hear Better to die on your land than on your knees loud and clear. I carry 2 firearms any time I leave this property and just on it.
Next week I have to go to the Soviet Replublic of NY, and will carry. I just don't give a damn about their commie laws. If i don't come back it means i am dead. There is no way I will suffer prison time because they don't understand "Shall not be infringed".
I fear prison time, but not death. The Govt made me that way at Easter 99, when my inlaws were murdered and the cop shop was just 3 blocks away and in view. At that point and ever since I have been very aware my personal survival is all based on me. It took the SWAT team 3.5 hours to arrive on the scene. The Fire Dept beat them but 3 hours.
As I see things there is no point at all to show up 3.5 hours after the fact.
The things in make up are just wild! My wife almost never uses any, which is a good thing, and when she does not much but eye liner like things. Mine I make. LOL It is bear grease and iron oxides in a wide variety of colors. I have also used coconut oil as the oil base.
Life is still hard. We fall in the shower, we run one another over and bash them in cars. Once i set my self on fire in camp wearing a waxed frock coat still from rain. No big deal to put the coat out, I recieved a slight burn on both hands. Not bad.
Then in the modern world a guy I worked with blew up a 55 gallon steel barrel making trash cans of them. He missed just one, which was partly full of fiber glass resin. BOOM, and i found out I could fly. I didn't fly very well though. I stopped quickly when I hit a wall with hooks to hold tools. There i was hung up on the damnned wall with no way to get down. I wasn't in the best of moods.
I still have scars on my right shoulder and neck from that deal, and little white spots where the hooks impailed me.
The poly pro shop uniforms are not near safe. In this type of clothing when if catches fire it just melts. I have 3 times torn shirts of car techs running by me on fire. I save their lives as best I can, and suffer the burns for it. It's hard to get a melting garment off another tech.
I been kicked by horses too, but find motorcycle crashes a bit more harsh.
We are no safer, just have different ways to meet our maker, whom ever they are to YOU.
Modern medicine has only become so recently. It was about 1860 when it was discovered washing of hand was causing less infections doing surgery. Before that the sign of a great surgon was a real bloody apron with bloods mixed from many mixed people. If you lived 10 seconds after surgery the operation was a success. Today this is better, but man should be far removed from the errors that still exist. I am not impressed much with a mere 150 years of medicine when man has been around as long as he has.
Life was hard. They died at birth, they died as toddlers, teenagers and young adults. And, added all up life expectancy in 1830 was around 40. And if they made it to age two it was about 44. And, as posted above, if they made it to age 10 it was about 58 in 1850. Again, it was not a box of chocolates. People who had to fish every week to eat fell through the ice now and then. and women caught on fire in front of wood stoves, and people got bacteria and viruses that they either beat or they died, and horses kicked them and they got trapped in the snow and starved. Life was really, really hard in 1800 America.
Yes, there is a tendency to romanticize the past, and make ourselves believe that life was easier and better at some point past.
However, the wonderful thing about living in the present is that you can draw on the good things from the past, while using the good things of today. Things like immunization and modern hospital facilities so that you can live longer. Modern schooling (whether public, private or homeschooled) so that our children (and ourselves) know more scientific principles and history to not repeat dumb mistakes done in the past. And hell no--I'm not wearing those huge dresses around a woodstove or any other kind of fire! (The reason for a high percentage of women deaths.)
I am very connected to the grid right now, but we use wood as our only heat (well, we do live in the mtns. of Arizona, so kind of stupid not to), and I hope to keep increasing the amount of food we grow ourselves. I also want to start a herb garden next year, including both spice and medicinal herbs. Even if I get to the point of becoming well versed in medicinal herbs (preparation and application), it will never take the place of the doctor for myself or my children. However, it will take the place of commercial over-the-counter drugs.
While living without electricity or plumbing, we had propane for cooking and refridgeration, hauled our water in from town, had a marine battery (with a generator to recharge it when neccesary) to run a radio and the computer. We also lived only a mile away from town.
Most people use a mix "technologies"--whatever will work best for them in their current situation.
There are so many different people who choose this broad spectrum of a lifestyle. And as many different reasons why and how. However, if I may be permitted to make a huge generalization on the group, I think the underlying reason most people make this choice (or wish they could), is because they wish to live life with more intention. Life seems at it's fullest when working out of doors to directly provide for oneself (for them). For people like this, working a "9-5" job is so stifling it feels like death. Wearing "nice" clothes and having a "nice" house--as we so often allow our neighbors and others to define for us--feels hollow.
But most importantly, they just want to live life how they want to. I have never seen anyone in the generalized group throw it in anyone else's face, or to demonish others for not living as they do, or to even preach. Of course they think it is the right way to live, but don't we all feel we know what is best? I truly don't understand the hositility some have given on this board and that some posters here have expressed receiving in real life.
As a historian, you will know that people who make history are people who accomplish things. And, the longer one lives, the more likely they are to be in the history books. Actually, people did drop like flies as they approached 40. And, my point was not that they all died from wood stove smoke consequences, it was a comment made in opposition to the incorrect statement, the import of which was that if we lived our lives like the pioneers of the past we would be safer, healthier, happier, etc. Actually, I was a student of history too and the period of pre industrial America which is what many folks fondly fantasize about, was a hard, dangerous, oppressive time. A time when the biggest cause of death other than childbirth among women was death by fire from wood stoves. And life was so hard that alcohol was consumed by nearly everyone to manage the pain of daily life in 1800. Let's not go back there, please. I could post more, but why? It was a horrible time. Glad we have made progress and I'm glad to be living in the era of detergent and pennicillan and electric washers and refrigerators.
Fireplaces in 1800, not stoves. Few Americans cooked on stoves in 1800. Cooking in a fireplace is more dangerous than a woodstove.
Alcohol was widely consumed because it was the most practical way to preserve most fruits' nutrients. Apple cider (hard cider) was the most common drink of the time. That cider probably kept many people from getting scurvy. Fruit could be dried too but that has its downsides. Canning was invented during Napoleon's reign and greatly improved things.
I'm not sure why, though, you think those talking about going off grid are also saying no to all modern medicine, etc.
And, the prevalence of diseases like cancer has increased, not coincidentally with the rise of the automobile and perhaps also widespread chemical use in agriculture. Life in 1800 had its dangers, and modern life has given us others.
Yes, there is a tendency to romanticize the past, and make ourselves believe that life was easier and better at some point past. . . . But most importantly, they just want to live life how they want to. I have never seen anyone in the generalized group throw it in anyone else's face, or to demonish others for not living as they do, or to even preach. Of course they think it is the right way to live, but don't we all feel we know what is best? I truly don't understand the hositility some have given on this board and that some posters here have expressed receiving in real life.
I think that intentionally living off our electrical grid is like a vow of silence. Its a spiritual exercise that is one person's choice and may be extraordinarily rewarding. Indeed may be the route to personal salvation. But it is not for everyone, nor even a good idea for most people.
Preparedness, on the other hand is like learning to read. If you don't get it, you are operating at the whim and will of a very fragile system. Where I live, the power went out all the time and so I got interested in alternative power sources, escape strategies, short term sustenance, etc. A wholly different exercise. But, no less valuable.
Two of the most terrific people in the world are the Cole-Tailers. Be sure to see their story here:
Extrapolating your data, my point is proved exactly. What is wrong with you people over here? Don't you understand science or math or logic? Its like being in in a teen chat room.
He said "if you survived infant mortality" you would live to 70. You only posted two relevant numbers. At birth, its 38 at at age 10 its 58. My number with his quibble was 44. So what is it from age 2 or whatever you define as an infant? If I plotted the 38/0 and 58/10, I guaranty it will be a hairs breath from 44.
Do you not know that if a person lives to be 60 he has a pretty good chance of living until 70?
No, I don't understand math... that's why I'm a math teacher.
Extrapolation? What are you talking about? It's called conditional probability. The concept obviously went over your head. There's no point in arguing with someone who is stuck on an average (pretty much the only thing mass media ever reports) and cannot understand what that average represents in the bigger picture. You're right, way back when, everyone died on their 44th birthday. And every family has exactly 2.4 children and .5 dogs as well--who knows what that four tenths of a kid and half a dog looks like.
You didn't catch the part about the distribution curve being skewed, did you? You go ahead and use a linear model (plotting 38/0 and 58/10) to model a non-linear (typically the Gompertz curve with specific parameters) data set. On top of that it's conditional. I sure hope you're not a statistician.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac
My take on longevity is that people did live to old age years ago.
The life expectancy got skewed because of the many that died young from things that we don't worry about today.
That's exactly right. But there is no use presenting the truth or any statistical backing to someone who is convinced he/she is right. As he/she even said... they "dropped like flies" at 40 years of age. Even the concept of a standard deviation (the average deviation from the average), when offered, was not enough to sway this misconception.
Look at these numbers: 1,2,2,2,5,7,9,34,41,59,70,95,102
What you and I see as a list of numbers ranging from 1 to 102, with a standard deviation of a whopping 35.796 years (quite a spread!), he/she sees as a list of the number 33 . All of those numbers are 33 in his/her eyes.
Now, you tell me, is the number 33 a good representation for the entire list? You and I would say no. If those numbers represented age of death, does it show "dropping like flies" at age 33. No way. But he/she would say it is a good representation and indeed they do "drop like flies" at age 33. I call this a "fixation on average" (don't remember what it was called back in all those hairy stats classes). The moral of the story is that we need to be careful when flinging around statistics--they can lead to some pretty bizarre misconceptions.
No its not and if you're a math teacher I understand the deplorable condition of the math scores of American children. The poster gave us a little partial data. That had two relevant data points. Did I say I extrapolated on a linear progression? I don't think so. But then you asserted that I did and proceeded to dispute that.
My point was and is that the likely life expectancy in 1830 was 40. It was. The poster disputed that by saying the numbers were skewed by infant mortality. OK, I'll revise to 44. Then he posts a mortality table that says 38 at birth and 58 at age 10. Is that table right? I gave it the benefit of doubt. Do you have enough information from that to disprove my "estimate" of 44 at the terminus of infancy (whatever that is? 3 months? 1 year? A two year old is not an infant but I gave him the benefit of the doubt). you tell me. What is the life expectancy of an infant in 1830 who survives infant death? I said 44. Prove it wrong.
Last edited by Wilson513; 07-23-2010 at 11:52 AM..
No its not and if you're a math teacher I understand the deplorable condition of the math scores of American children. The poster gave us a little partial data. That had two relevant data points. Did I say I extrapolated on a linear progression? I don't think so. But then you asserted that I did and proceeded to dispute that.
My point was and is that the likely life expectancy in 1830 was 40. It was. The poster disputed that by saying the numbers were skewed by infant mortality. OK, I'll revise to 44. Then he posts a mortality table that says 38 at birth and 58 at age 10. Do you have enough information from that to disprove my "estimate" of 44 at the terminus of infancy (whatever that is? 3 months? 1 year? A two year old is not an infant but I gave him the benefit of the doubt). you tell me. What is the life expectancy of an infant in 1830 who survives infant death? I said 44. Prove it wrong.
I gave you a link that did exactly that. You ignored it. I don't think anyone has the time to write out an entire data set for you here on the forum.
Are you always prone to jumping to slandering folks you don't even know? Until you've sat through one of my math classes, I'd say you have absolutely no right or base to slander me. We are not discussing me. If you want to discuss me, start a thread.
So, tell me, which distribution function are you going to use? Go ahead and model it since you seem to know something that the government and higher education/research statisticians don't. Let's see what you come up with. The problem is, you have tunnel vision. If you'd simply have looked at the links I'd provided, your condition would have been made clear to you. I'm done arguing about it because even when shown the statistics, having the concept of non-symmetric distributions, standard deviation (spread of data), and conditional probability pointed out to you, you still stubbornly adhere to the arithmetic mean. If that's what you want to fixate on, it's fine by me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
