←back to thread

The past was not that cute

(juliawise.net)
430 points mhb | 1 comments | 06 Dec 25 21:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nntwozz ◴[07 Dec 25 14:01 UTC] No.46181743[source]▶
Look at this astonishing graph:

https://kottke.org/25/12/an-astonishing-graph

For most of human history, around 50% of children used to die before they reached the end of puberty. In 2020, that number is 4.3%. It’s 0.3% in countries like Japan & Norway.

replies(1): >>46181796 #
libraryofbabel ◴[07 Dec 25 14:12 UTC] No.46181796[source]▶
Yeah, I thought of this first as well. There is nothing that hammers home the point that the past was a horrible place better than childhood mortality statistics. I’m surprised the author of the article didn’t mention it, given all her focus on families - I mean, good for her for realizing she didn’t understand what life in the past was really like, but she still seems a little focused on “it wasn’t cute” rather than the really big differences.

Related recent HN thread on the Bills of Mortality from early modern London: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46045061

The tldr of my post there is that life before the mass availability of antibiotics after WWII was pretty terrifying.

replies(2): >>46181987 #>>46182965 #
1. dan-robertson ◴[07 Dec 25 14:40 UTC] No.46181987[source]▶
People sometimes say that people in the past would have been familiar with the idea that mortality is high and therefore fine when half their children died. While there would have been cultural rituals in these cases, it seems like there is reasonable evidence (epitaphs, cultural practices eaves-drip burials or stillborn baptisms, etc) that the loss was still very dearly felt and so people’s lives were just much worse.