Among most hunter-gatherer groups those making it past the age of 5 live to an average 65 years, the same life expectancy of modern Glasgow. What drags the average life expectancy down is a high infant mortality rate (lots of people dying at 4 is going to make the average age at death much lower). — Isaac

Cite this.

Cite this. — Hanover

Life Expectancy in Hunter-Gatherers

Hunter-gatherers do not experience short, nasty, and brutish lives as some earlier scholars have suggested (Vallois 1961). Instead, there appears to be a characteristic life span for Homo sapiens, in that on average, human bodies function well for about seven decades. These seven decades start with high infant mortality rates that rapidly decline through childhood, followed by a period in which mortality remains essentially the same to about 40 years. After this period, mortality rates rise steadily until around 70 years of age (Gurven and Kaplan 2007).

Also:

Longevity Among Hunter- Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination

Due largely to high infant mortality from infectious disease, the expected lifespan at birth for hunter-gatherer popula- tions is lower (typically 30s-40s) than developed countries today (8). A common misinterpretation of this observation is to assume that few hunter-gatherers (either today or in the past) live to older ages.

In fact, demographic analyses of small-scale populations show that adult survivorship is similar in some ways to in- dustrialized societies, with adults regularly living into their 60s and 70s and even beyond (5,8,9). Gurven and Kaplan (8), in a review of hunter-gatherer and subsistence farmer mortality data across 12 populations, report that ~60% of newborns in these populations survive to age 15 and ~40% to age 45.

Indeed, the modal age at death for hunter-gatherer populations examined by Gurven and Kaplan (8) is ~72 years (range: 68-78 years), near the value for the US population (85 years) in 2002. Nevertheless, in wealthier nations, improvements in hygiene, diet and health care over the last hundred years have added several decades to life expectancies at birth, relative to those observed in hunter-gatherers

Thanks. That saved me a job.

Nevertheless, in wealthier nations, improvements in hygiene, diet and health care over the last hundred years have added several decades to life expectancies at birth, relative to those observed in hunter-gatherers

Several decades is significant.

Also, that massive numbers are dying prior to age 5 is kind of important too.

From Wiki:

"Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years.[37] They further estimate that 70% of deaths are due to diseases of some kind, 20% of deaths come from violence or accidents and 10% are due to degenerative diseases." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer.

"life expectancy at age 15 is 48 years for Aborigines, 52 and 51 for settled Ache and !Kung, yet 31 and 36 for peas-ant and transitional Agta.Survival to age 45 varies between 19 and 54 percent, and those aged 45 live an average of 12–24 additional years."

"In the united states as of 2002 the mode age of mortality was 85. In most cases about 30% of of adult deaths occur at ages above the modal age of mortality."

https://condensedscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/life-expectancy-in-hunter-gatherers-and-other-groups/

This shows:

1. The average life expectancy in hunter gatherer societies is about four decades less than in industrial societies if child mortality is included.
2. The average life expectancy in hunter gatherer societies is several decades less than in industrial societies if child mortality is excluded.
3. Industrial nations are continuing to distance themselves in both categories as time moves forward.
4. If you live in a hunter gatherer society, your chances of dying before age 15 are extremely high.

So, as to my post where I proclaimed life industrialized nations would result in a profoundly longer life span, how does anything here disprove that?

Several decades is significant. — Hanover

Several decades to life expectancies at birth, i.e. a reduction in child mortality rates (among other things, of course).

"In the united states as of 2002 the mode age of mortality was 85. In most cases about 30% of of adult deaths occur at ages above the modal age of mortality."

The sentence immediately before that reads: "The modal age of mortality in hunter-gatherers can range from 68 in the Hiwi to 78 in the Tsimane."

Hmm, it seems to me that one can not talk about why the tragedy of the commons actually takes place without bringing into the discussion game-theory.

The prisoners dilemma can be a starting point.

And contrary to the prevailing sentiment ethics isn't a universal language game.

So, as to my post where I proclaimed life industrialized nations would result in a profoundly longer life span, how does anything here disprove that? — Hanover

The figure you used was 40s which is incorrect and you then went on to say...

The point being that privatization and democratic rule have led to great prosperity — Hanover

... which the figures do not show since every other aspect of hunter-gather lifestyle (aside from neonatal care) seems entirely consistent with a reasonably long and healthy life.

.. which the figures do not show since every other aspect of hunter-gather lifestyle (aside from neonatal care) seems entirely consistent with a reasonably long and healthy life. — Isaac

They absolutely show a statistically significant increase in life span in industrialized countries, even more overwhelming when childhood deaths are included. You keep using the term "neonatal," but 15 years of age not a newborn. And, I don't know why you discard the fact that children are dying very young in hunter gatherer societies. I do hold that having your children reach adulthood is an incredibly important thing. Actually, I can think of fewer things worse than burying your child, but apparently you guys think that's hardly worth mentioning when comparing life of the hunter gatherer to others.

I'm still waiting for you to intrinsically link the whole of the capitalist infrastructure to preventing childhood deaths. It's got nothing to do with how awful it is that such societies still experience this tragedy, it's to do with your incredibly political claim that the elimination of such tragic circumstances is somehow inextricably linked to privatisation and capitalism.

It's a small number of very specific factors which cause this problem (mostly medical), not an entire socio-economic structure.

I'm still waiting for you to intrinsically link the whole of the capitalist infrastructure to preventing childhood deaths. — Isaac

But this is the first you've asked that.

It's a small number of, very specific factors which cause this problem (mostly medical), not an entire socio-economic structure. — Isaac

I think it has to do with all sorts of things, including medical, all of which are evident in wealthier nations. Capitalism creates wealth and prosperity.

But this is the first you've asked that. — Hanover

To support your position, you'd have to show how the entire capitalist infrastructure was, in it's entirety, a necessary factor in improving neonatal care and that such improvements could not possibly have been brought about any other way. — Isaac

I think it has to do with all sorts of things, including medical, all of which are evident in wealthier nations. Capitalism creates wealth and prosperity. — Hanover

OK, since your immediate response to me was to ask for a citation, I'll play along in the same spirit. Cite me the evidence that it is more than just medical. Cite me the evidence that capitalism creates wealth and prosperity, and then complete your argument (relative to the thread) that no other system is equally capable of creating wealth and prosperity. All with citations.

Anyway, I look at the world and don't see a tragedy of the commons. — Hanover

That is a statement about you, not about reality. I think others have pointed that out.

It's important that folk who are responding to you by citing evidence realise that.

It's an odd argument... kids live past five, the internet works, therefore there is no problem with the commons.

Odd.

It's an odd argument... kids live past five, the internet works, therefore there is no problem with the commons.

Odd. — Banno

It's an odd argument... The democratic process protects the commons and we all benefit, yet there is a problem with the common.

Odd.

But to anyone looking objectively at it, one thing and one thing alone is responsible for the change in life expectancy and that's better neonatal medical care. — Isaac

I think it''s also the medications keeping people "alive" well past their "use by' dates.

The democratic process protects the commons... — Hanover

Sure. You kinda missed the thrust of the thread, though, which was more about the need for an ought to be inserted somewhere in the calculation.

Sure. You kinda missed the thrust of the thread, though, which was more about the need for an ought to be inserted somewhere in the calculation. — Banno

Of course. That's why we ought have democratic rule and ought not have a dictatorship.

Another commons is the NHS, of course.

That's why we ought have democratic rule and ought not have a dictatorship. — Hanover

Yeah that would be great wouldn't it.

You are weeding the path, not the garden.

I think it''s also the medications keeping people "alive" well past their "use by' dates. — Janus

Yeah, that too.

The problem with @Hanover's argument is that basically, better surgery and the discovery of antibiotics have had a hugely disproportionate part to play in our increased lifespans and yet this tired old crap gets trotted out every time someone wants to support some generally capitalist policy, that the whole agri-industrial complex has somehow been, in equal part, responsible for these improvements.

I think it has to do with all sorts of things, including medical, all of which are evident in wealthier nations. Capitalism creates wealth and prosperity. — Hanover

According the the WHO "Antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health, food security, and development today." They're not saying "Antibiotic resistance is basically fine because privatisation, the free-market, property ownership and modern technology all play just as important a role in global health, food security, and development, so no need to worry". Lose antibiotics and modern surgery and we're right back to 19thC death rates, the rest of the economic system has nothing to do with it.

So now you state that the reason we have increased life expectancies is because of (1) better neo-natal care, (2) antibiotics, and (3) better surgery, yet for some reason that's irrelevant to the analysis of whether industrialized nations are superior to hunter-gatherer ones. You then deny the correlation between the two, as if it shouldn't be fairly obvious that if the better part of your day is spent spearing animals and gathering berries and then nomadically journeying to the next more fertile spot wouldn't lend itself very well to developing the next best MRI machine.

Fortunately what we do, including the US, is to take the money and the skills developed due to our superior economic structure and offer assistance to those less advanced nations and we clean their teeth, purify their water, and vaccinate their citizens, not to mention feed them and provide for them in times of drought. It's called caring for the commons..

So now you state that the reason we have increased life expectancies is because of (1) better neo-natal care, (2) antibiotics, and (3) better surgery, yet for some reason that's irrelevant to the analysis of whether industrialized nations are superior to hunter-gatherer ones. — Hanover

Irrelevant? No. I'm countering the opinion that it has any necessary connection to capitalism. To make that claim you'd have to demonstrate that it was not possible any other way. All three of those factors (though 1 and 3 would be impossible without 2) were discovered by amateur or government sponsored scientists. The uptake of penicillin was actually slowed by a reluctant pharmaceutical market. So how exactly did capitalism play a crucial role in their development?

as if it shouldn't be fairly obvious that if the better part of your day is spent spearing animals and gathering berries and then nomadically journeying to the next more fertile spot wouldn't lend itself very well to developing the next best MRI machine. — Hanover

Sigh! Hunter-gatherers work a shorter working week doing all that than the average westener. The San for example average about 14 hours.

Fortunately what we do, including the US, is to take the money and the skills developed due to our superior economic structure and offer assistance to those less advanced nations and we clean their teeth, purify their water, and vaccinate their citizens, not to mention feed them and provide for them in times of drought. It's called caring for the commons.. — Hanover

1. Hunter-gatherer tribes have better dental health than modern Americans.
2. The water is perfectly safe to drink in the wild, it is contaminated by the consequences of development (agriculture, urbanisation and industrialisation)
3. 9 out of the ten most virulent communicable diseases are caused by agriculture. There are no diseases in hunter-gatherer tribes which are treatable with vaccination programmes.

Your prejudice is clouding your assessment of how much evidence you need to support your position. How much reading on anthropology have you done prior to concluding that native tribes are all backward savages barely scraping a disease-ridden living from the mud?

1. Hunter-gatherer tribes have better dental health than modern Americans.
2. The water is perfectly safe to drink in the wild, it is contaminated by the consequences of development (agriculture, urbanisation and industrialisation)
3. 9 out of the ten most virulent communicable diseases are caused by agriculture. There are no diseases in hunter-gatherer tribes which are treatable with vaccination programmes. — Isaac

1. They have terrible dental health. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6336/362.summary
2. I guess they had to find water first, but once they did, and they didn't die from the malaria ridden waters, maybe they could go about living their healthy lives, assuming they weren't burying their neonatal corpses, which is defined as any death under 15 years of age.
3. HIV began in the hunter gatherer community. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26316-perfect-storm-turned-hiv-from-local-to-global-killer/
There is now effective treatment for that.

I didn't call hunter gatherers savages, scraping by in the mud. I simply don't accept the prejudice generally ascribed to modern society by those in academia. It's not anti-intellectualism, as I expect you'll next start arguing, but more just a refusal to accept the nonsense that health improves the farther I get away from modern hospitals.

Today my coworker's spouse fell and broke her jaw. How might she fare in the Congo, having to chew her food sideways for the rest of her life?

1. They have terrible dental health. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6336/362.summary — Hanover

Try reading the actual article next time rather than than just googling until you find something that matches your prejudice. The study found decay at a "prevalence of dental disease comparable to that of modern, industrial societies with diets high in refined sugars" in one group and only in the men (the women were much better than modern society). The study was startling entirely because "This is the first time we’ve seen such bad oral health in a pre-agricultural population", the findings were put down to a unique diet high in starchy nuts and considered an oddity.

HIV began in the hunter gatherer community. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26316-perfect-storm-turned-hiv-from-local-to-global-killer/
There is now effective treatment for that. — Hanover

Your comment referred to vaccinating their children. What diseases prevalent in hunter-gatherer societies do vaccinations prevent? Or is that just more prejudicial assumption?

And I'm still waiting for any evidence whatsoever that capitalism was necessary for any of these marvellous medical advances that our society has made.

Yes, the prisoner's dilemma is relevant.

...ethics isn't a universal language game. — Wallows

Not at all sure what to make of this. Do you wish to expand on it?

Yes, the prisoner's dilemma is relevant. — Banno

I'll right away point out that rationality in economics can reach psychotic levels. I studied it. Just think about the requirement imposed by some Aryan brotherhood as to prevent any of the prisoners from ratting another out...

Do you wish to expand on it? — Banno

Well, there isn't much to say is there? Ethics in economics has always been the inconvenient outlier in any rational based strategy.

@fdrake may help out here as I'm going to be shutting down soon.

Just think about the requirement imposed by some Aryan brotherhood as to prevent any of the prisoners from ratting another out... — Wallows

:lol:

Oh, yeah. That's something of what I had in mind - the economists puzzlement with the commons strikes me, and I hope you, as mad; an obsession with the fetish of the "rational" to the exclusion of all reason. As soon as one take an ethical view - that is, looks at the problem without insisting that greed is the only motive for action - the answer is obvious.

Let's not get into talk about such literal wicked game theory scenarios of Mutually Assured Destruction, a suicide pact deemed too 'rational' by our great leaders to not implement.

Shit gets depressing, hard and fast.