FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Modern living, healthy or not?
Modern living, healthy or not?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"I'd have pointed the finger at obesity rather than technology." No as it wasn't obesity killing people early in the 1900s. I'd stab a guess at medication, hygiene and a decrease in economic deprivation. F D Roosevelt and all his new deals after the crash of 1933. If my memory serves me right. | |||
| |||
"I'd have pointed the finger at obesity rather than technology. No as it wasn't obesity killing people early in the 1900s. I'd stab a guess at medication, hygiene and a decrease in economic deprivation. F D Roosevelt and all his new deals after the crash of 1933. If my memory serves me right." An impressive memory if you're that old. What is it that explains the disparity a hundred years later? I don't believe it's technology. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I'd have pointed the finger at obesity rather than technology. No as it wasn't obesity killing people early in the 1900s. I'd stab a guess at medication, hygiene and a decrease in economic deprivation. F D Roosevelt and all his new deals after the crash of 1933. If my memory serves me right. An impressive memory if you're that old. What is it that explains the disparity a hundred years later? I don't believe it's technology." 
There's less disparity now. Unless you're comparing Americans of modern day to Americans after the great depression and after WWII. | |||
"This thread needs a link as it seems one may be confusing life expectancy of 40 as being most people die around 40. " It is. | |||
"I'd have pointed the finger at obesity rather than technology. No as it wasn't obesity killing people early in the 1900s. I'd stab a guess at medication, hygiene and a decrease in economic deprivation. F D Roosevelt and all his new deals after the crash of 1933. If my memory serves me right. An impressive memory if you're that old. What is it that explains the disparity a hundred years later? I don't believe it's technology.
There's less disparity now. Unless you're comparing Americans of modern day to Americans after the great depression and after WWII."I've read it and re-read it and still don't really get it. If I'm understanding, the argument is that people in the general population have only recently had a similar life expectancy to the Amish. The Amish continue to have similar life expectancy but reject modern medicines. Possibly attributed to a more active lifestyle/better nutrition/low obesity. Still not sure where technology fits unless that's reference to modern medicines etc.? | |||
| |||
"I'd have pointed the finger at obesity rather than technology. No as it wasn't obesity killing people early in the 1900s. I'd stab a guess at medication, hygiene and a decrease in economic deprivation. F D Roosevelt and all his new deals after the crash of 1933. If my memory serves me right. An impressive memory if you're that old. What is it that explains the disparity a hundred years later? I don't believe it's technology.
There's less disparity now. Unless you're comparing Americans of modern day to Americans after the great depression and after WWII.
I've read it and re-read it and still don't really get it.
If I'm understanding, the argument is that people in the general population have only recently had a similar life expectancy to the Amish.
The Amish continue to have similar life expectancy but reject modern medicines.
Possibly attributed to a more active lifestyle/better nutrition/low obesity.
Still not sure where technology fits unless that's reference to modern medicines etc.?"Lack of technology is no cars, tractors, phones, laptops, jcb, chainsaws etc As stated, love to give the link but understand fab are quite anal about links, any mods reading please advise 
What I found interesting is the cancer stats and the lack or immunity of it. Never mind the mental health of the community | |||
" Lack of technology is no cars, tractors, phones, laptops, jcb, chainsaws etc As stated, love to give the link but understand fab are quite anal about links, any mods reading please advise
What I found interesting is the cancer stats and the lack or immunity of it. Never mind the mental health of the community "So their life expectancy remained the same? And everyone else's got better? Apart from a little lower in the past few years including the year of the pandemic. So an unhealthy lifestyle with technology may lead to a similar life expectancy to a more physical lifestyle without technology? This does seem a discussion best had in a bar  | |||
" Lack of technology is no cars, tractors, phones, laptops, jcb, chainsaws etc As stated, love to give the link but understand fab are quite anal about links, any mods reading please advise
What I found interesting is the cancer stats and the lack or immunity of it. Never mind the mental health of the community
So their life expectancy remained the same?
And everyone else's got better?
Apart from a little lower in the past few years including the year of the pandemic.
So an unhealthy lifestyle with technology may lead to a similar life expectancy to a more physical lifestyle without technology?
This does seem a discussion best had in a bar "Lol think it's a bit more different then that, hence the cancer rates, dementia and other things. It would seem they have better immunity from such things | |||
"I'd have pointed the finger at obesity rather than technology. No as it wasn't obesity killing people early in the 1900s. I'd stab a guess at medication, hygiene and a decrease in economic deprivation. F D Roosevelt and all his new deals after the crash of 1933. If my memory serves me right. An impressive memory if you're that old. What is it that explains the disparity a hundred years later? I don't believe it's technology.
There's less disparity now. Unless you're comparing Americans of modern day to Americans after the great depression and after WWII.
I've read it and re-read it and still don't really get it.
If I'm understanding, the argument is that people in the general population have only recently had a similar life expectancy to the Amish.
The Amish continue to have similar life expectancy but reject modern medicines.
Possibly attributed to a more active lifestyle/better nutrition/low obesity.
Still not sure where technology fits unless that's reference to modern medicines etc.?
Lack of technology is no cars, tractors, phones, laptops, jcb, chainsaws etc
As stated, love to give the link but understand fab are quite anal about links, any mods reading please advise
What I found interesting is the cancer stats and the lack or immunity of it. Never mind the mental health of the community "post something we can search on. Article headline say.  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'd have pointed the finger at obesity rather than technology. No as it wasn't obesity killing people early in the 1900s. I'd stab a guess at medication, hygiene and a decrease in economic deprivation. F D Roosevelt and all his new deals after the crash of 1933. If my memory serves me right. An impressive memory if you're that old. What is it that explains the disparity a hundred years later? I don't believe it's technology.
There's less disparity now. Unless you're comparing Americans of modern day to Americans after the great depression and after WWII.
I've read it and re-read it and still don't really get it.
If I'm understanding, the argument is that people in the general population have only recently had a similar life expectancy to the Amish.
The Amish continue to have similar life expectancy but reject modern medicines.
Possibly attributed to a more active lifestyle/better nutrition/low obesity.
Still not sure where technology fits unless that's reference to modern medicines etc.?"My understanding was lack of technology meant more physical labour equates to much more physical exercise, more mental awareness, more grounding and inturn relating with their surroundings better and more this more purposeful. Physical and mental fitness are at a better balance and therefore provide better health.(Our mental and physical state do not work independently to each other). | |||
| |||
| |||
"if you google Amish life expectancy and look for the Amish furniture factory article or the time magazine one " I see you've qouted directly ! The paper it links to seems to look at average age of those who survive past 30, so isn't a fair comparison to a average age at birth. | |||
"if you google Amish life expectancy and look for the Amish furniture factory article or the time magazine one I see you've qouted directly ! The paper it links to seems to look at average age of those who survive past 30, so isn't a fair comparison to a average age at birth. " The average age at birth, or indeed the age of birth starts with zero. You're welcome | |||
"if you google Amish life expectancy and look for the Amish furniture factory article or the time magazine one I see you've qouted directly ! The paper it links to seems to look at average age of those who survive past 30, so isn't a fair comparison to a average age at birth. The average age at birth, or indeed the age of birth starts with zero. You're welcome "Not in China where you're born age one   | |||
"if you google Amish life expectancy and look for the Amish furniture factory article or the time magazine one I see you've qouted directly ! The paper it links to seems to look at average age of those who survive past 30, so isn't a fair comparison to a average age at birth. The average age at birth, or indeed the age of birth starts with zero. You're welcome
Not in China where you're born age one "If that's true I've learned something through Fab, who'd a thunk it | |||
