Things have gotten better and progress has been made from times past, it just seems worse now because we have more access to information. We’ve come far, and have further to go!

    • Godric@lemmy.worldOP
      24·
      1 year ago

      Yep, and now there’s not a deluge of dead children dragging the average down, which is objectively pretty great

        • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I feel like you’re just excited to share a fact about a common misconception rather than actually paying attention to what’s being said. Infant mortality is still a bad thing. While it’s true folks lived about as long less infant mortality is still a net improvement.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            1 year ago

            I’m paying attention. I feel like you just want to point out that it’s a common misconception rather than engage with the fact that dying at 51 is very different from child mortality.

      • droans@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yeah if I had to choose how to bump up the life expectancy, reducing child mortality would definitely be my first choice.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, in particular the “average age of death” might be 51 if the average includes a lot of people who died as children. OTOH, the average person dying at 51 is fundamentally different in how you think of it.

        • Seudo@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          Life expectancy at, is used by academics when relevant. Average at birth, adulthood and even once they’re over the hill have utility. Like identifying outliers.

          Regardless, the average person is going to use average as a nebulas concept occasionally informed by science but hearsay and superstition on an average day.