26

In this article, About.com article on Life Expectancy they claim:

In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years

I've also the same claim elsewhere.

However, this doesn't jibe with informal data-gathering I have done:

  • An arbitary search of Wikipedia of random people that I know lived and died (of natural causes) before the 20th century shows that almost all of them died over 30.

  • I was in an old cemetery the other day, and saw that very few of the people buried there pre-1900 was under 30 years.

So I understand my "research" is purely unscientific - e.g. to be on Wikipedia you have to be famous, which means you probably were wealthy, which means you probably increased your chances of living longer.

Still, I find it hard to imagine a world where 30 is the life expectancy - i.e. that roughly around half the people would die younger than 30.

I would like to hear further evidence supporting this fact or explanation for the fact.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
Samuelson
  • 3,781
  • 2
  • 29
  • 44
  • [Penicillin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Discovery) was discovered in 1928 - it is arguably the single most significant advancement in medicine. – Sklivvz Mar 27 '11 at 00:06
  • 17
    Maybe infant mortality rate was averaged in with the number. I never felt that number sounded right either. – David Mar 27 '11 at 00:44
  • 1
    @Sklivvz - i would disagree with "the single most significant", but it's certainy impactful. The actual analysis of mortality decrease due to different medical advances (Antiseptics, vaccines, antibiotics, transplants, etc...) would make for an interesting question, though possibly off-topic for Skeptics. – user5341 Mar 27 '11 at 14:40
  • 12
    Biographies of random people would have a serious selection bias, in that they'd be written about people who lived long enough to accomplish something significant. Now, some significant people died before 30 (Keats comes to mind), but it completely eliminates infant mortality and childhood disease from the figures. – David Thornley Apr 07 '11 at 02:10
  • 1
    @DVK: I'd suggest that basic hygiene was likely a major breakthrough, changing cities from population sinks to population sources. The Panama Canal Zone was one of the world's worst fever coasts before the preparation for building the canal, and that predates most useful drugs. – David Thornley Apr 07 '11 at 02:12
  • 1
    The fact that you're talking about *world* life expectancy is not helpful either. Even now, I wouldn't expect it to be the 80+ years that the industrialized west can typically expect, because there are still large parts of the world where it doesn't rise above 35. In 1900, Japan and Korea were only *just* industrialized for example, and Africa... well, was simply a place from which Europe extracted natural resources. That doesn't even touch the other wild parts of the world, many of which Westerners avoided entirely for being too dangerous. – Ernie Jun 14 '11 at 20:51
  • 1
    "roughly around half the people would die younger than 30". That is not true. If infant mortality is high, you can get a skewed graph where significantly more than half the people survive to reach the life-expectancy. (Note: I am actually quoting my words, since I edited it, but the original question made the same point.) – Oddthinking Feb 07 '12 at 12:13
  • There is another recent thread here, claiming half of all children in rural Africa die before age 10, mostly from malaria. – GEdgar Jun 29 '15 at 13:18
  • The answer to this question is the same as that at https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/53324/was-17-the-average-life-expectancy-in-liverpool-in-the-1850s?noredirect=1#comment256597_53324 – Greybeard May 19 '22 at 20:25
  • @David I haven't investigated the data, but like you said - I suspect that it is a [bimodal distribution](https://www.statology.org/bimodal-distribution/), with significant numbers of people dying either very young or much older. Using unimodal techniques such as mean (averages) on a bimodal distribution can give a serious misrepresentation of the facts. – Yehuda May 20 '22 at 13:24

5 Answers5

24

If you want to look on Wikipedia, here's a good place to start:

Table of Life Expectancy Variation Over Time

The table clearly shows that pretty much till mid-20th century, life expectancy was <30 years (aside from aristocracy).

As to why such a change in the last 100+ years, there are 3 main factors:

  • Child/infant mortality. From the same Wikipedia article:

    The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829. Ref 1;Ref 2

    Even 30% infant mortality means that the "actual" life expectancy of, say, 50 years would turn into average TOTAL life expectancy of 30+ years. (Basic math - for population of 10 people, average life expectancy would be roughly (3*0.5+7*50)/100=351.5/10=35.15. This is VERY rough and not an actual statistical calculation accounting for distributions, but enough of an approximation to show the great effect on the #s)

  • Medicine. Most life-extending medical advances we take for granted are, at most, 120-150 years old (including antibiotics or, heck, sterilization). See this Timeline of Medicine and Medical Technology. A few among the late-19th/early 20th century are 1870-80s (Antiseptic practices, germ theory of disease, first vaccines by Pasteur); 1906 (Vitamins), 1928 (Penicillin).

  • Widespread growth of the average wealth of society (e.g. economic surplus) allowed people who wouldn't have survived before 20th century (e.g. die of hunger/malnutrition/lack of vitamins/etc...) to survive. Before 19th century, a VERY large proportion of population live basically on the edge of subsistence.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
user5341
  • 31,075
  • 8
  • 130
  • 178
  • 9
    also see [Life_expectancy_vs._life_span](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_vs._life_span) on the same page: *"Life expectancy is often confused with life span to the point that they are nearly synonyms; when people hear 'life expectancy was 35 years' they often interpret this as meaning that people of that time or place had short life spans."* and *"in the Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48."* – matt wilkie Mar 27 '11 at 07:55
  • Hi, can you find better references than wikipedia? :-) – Sklivvz Mar 27 '11 at 08:56
  • @Sklivvz - Wiki article contains actual references, the #s of which I **deliberately** left in the quote. – user5341 Mar 27 '11 at 12:16
  • See http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/5/must-answers-be-referenced and http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/132/list-of-useful-sources-for-skeptics-se – Sklivvz Mar 27 '11 at 14:18
  • @Sklivvz - I don't think the Meta links talk about the exact required formatting for the cite links. Nevertheless I added actual links. – user5341 Mar 27 '11 at 14:30
  • 2
    @DVK - What I meant is that Wikipedia is generally *not authoritative enough*. – Sklivvz Mar 27 '11 at 15:33
  • 2
    @Sklivvz - agree. Only the pieces that cite other research are. – user5341 Mar 27 '11 at 16:50
  • @DVK - no, because someone could edit the wikipedia page. The other research might not be there for the next user :-) – Sklivvz Mar 27 '11 at 16:53
  • http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/289/wikipedia-as-a-source – Sklivvz Mar 27 '11 at 17:47
  • @Matt If I'm not mistaken, life expectancy at birth equals average life span. Life expectancy goes up if you grow older, of course. If you're 99 the probability of you getting 100 is (much) larger than when you're 0, 10, 20... So an expectancy of 35 at birth really means that -on average- people died at age 35. So speaking of short life spans is justified. That doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been people that got older than that, just that it was rare. – Sjoerd C. de Vries Apr 06 '11 at 10:18
  • 4
    @Sjoerd: No, life expectancy at birth has nothing to do with lifespan. While it may be common for people to live well into their 50s and 60s, if 75% of your children die before the age of 5 (which was common even in wealthy, industrial countries before 1700), that's going to drag the *average* life expectancy down quite a lot. – Ernie Jun 14 '11 at 20:40
  • @Ernie I believe you are mistaken here. First, you can't say "average life expectancy" as life expectancy already is some kind of average. The early childhood mortality that you are talking about is part of the life expectancy _at birth_. If you get to live to twenty yoa, your life expectancy _will_ change. Normally you talk about a life expectancy _at a given age_. – Sjoerd C. de Vries Jun 15 '11 at 12:49
  • 1
    Yes, but that's exactly what they mean when they say "average life expectancy". If it's really low, like around 30, then they're clearly counting infant mortality rates, which was the largest factor in people dying throughout most of history. The ancient Greeks had plenty of citizens who lived to be a ripe old age, but their *average life expectancy* was very low due to high infant mortality rates. You could likewise say that most people died before the age of 30 (thus the average). And that was largely because of high infant mortality rates. – Ernie Jun 15 '11 at 16:22
  • This isn't, of course, to say that the world wasn't a dangerous place. For example, in 1900, it was still astoundingly common to see reports of ships lost at sea, with everyone assumed dead. These days there would be lengthy official investigations, but to the people at the time, it was a routine hazard. Sailing was simply a dangerous task that noone could do much about. Likewise, see the accounts of prisoners returned to England from the Bounty Mutiny. Of those who were captured, more than half didn't survive the trip. Today we would never stand for that casualty rate. – Ernie Jun 15 '11 at 16:29
  • 1
    @Ernie Next time could you please include a @ sjoerd ref in your response? Otherwise I'll never know you did say anything in response. Your latest addition still does not refute my original claim that "life expectancy at birth equals average life span". Average life span means taking life spans of _all_ people, even those dying at young age, into account. Your idea of averaging seems to be averaging the ages of only the older ones, which seems rather silly. – Sjoerd C. de Vries Aug 14 '11 at 20:04
  • I think you mean "pretty much till _mid-19th_ century" in the beginning of your post. – Hendrik Vogt Sep 05 '11 at 16:15
  • *(which was common even in wealthy, industrial countries before 1700)*? Huh? What countries would that be? – gerrit Feb 13 '13 at 17:58
  • @gerrit - infant mortality was pretty high everywhere before 1700. You didn't exactly have great medicine available aside from bloodletting/leaches to even the 1%. I wasn't implying that there were countries that were "wealthy+industrial" pre-1700 :) – user5341 Feb 13 '13 at 18:00
  • The phrase *wealthy, industrial countries before 1700* came from @Ernie – gerrit Feb 13 '13 at 18:09
10

I don't think this data is available on a world scale. Remember, many countries didn't do any census stuff before the start of the previous century, and many still don't. Wolfram Alpha has some data available. This one, for instance, is the life expectancy at birth for The Netherlands:

enter image description here

See the impact of the two world wars? Interestingly, the Netherlands didn't even participate in WWI...

The US data Wolfram has, starts in the 1930s:

enter image description here

UK:

enter image description here

Iceland:

enter image description here

You can try some more countries for yourself, but most countries don't have data before the '40s (at least not in Wolfram Alpha's database)

Sjoerd C. de Vries
  • 576
  • 4
  • 15
  • WolframAlpha's data is decidedly incomplete. For example, central registration of births and deaths in the United Kingdom goes back to 1837, with the passage of the Births and Deaths Registration Act of 1836, while decentralized tracking in the parish registers goes back another two centuries or so. – Mark May 20 '22 at 01:54
8

Common confusion among laypersons: "Life expectancy" (without qualification) means life expectancy at birth. Which is different from life expectancy at age X.

So, say in 1900, 10 babies are born alive. If we expect 5 of these babies to live 1 year and 5 to live 60 years, then the average life expectancy (of these 10 babies) is

(5 × 1 + 5 × 60) ÷ 10 = 30.5.

The extremely low life expectancies in pre-modern societies (including most of the world in 1900) are due largely to very high mortality rates of infants (usually defined as <1y/o), child (1-5y/o), and more generally pre-adults.

An arbitary search of Wikipedia of random people that I know lived and died (of natural causes) before the 20th century shows that almost all of them died over 30.

Many (or even most) people died before reaching adulthood, hence dragging down the average life expectancy. Such persons probably wouldn't be recorded in history or Wikipedia (this is an example of "survivorship bias").

Estimates of world life expectancy in or around 1900

  • Riley (2005): 32.0 in 1900

enter image description here

  • Zijdeman and de Silva (2014) 28.7 in 1890s (decade) and 30.8 in 1900s (decade)

enter image description here

The dramatic increases in life expectancies (again, this refers to life expectancy at birth) have been due mostly to reductions in pre-adult mortality rates.

In contrast, life expectancy at higher ages has not risen so dramatically. Example of UK (Our World in Data):

enter image description here

0

I found quite interesting paper from 1994 by Michael R. Haines Estimated Life Tables for the United States, 1850-1900.

According to that paper, life expectancy in US 1850 was 38 years. I would say that 30 years for all world at 1900 is maybe bit low, but plausible.

What else could we see from life table of US 1850?

  1. Child mortality has high impact. 23% of newborns were dying during 1 year.
  2. Median life expectancy was higher than average life expectancy.
  3. Mode of age of death (excluding children) was much higher, than average or median.
  4. If someone reached age 20, he had 90% probability to reach age 30.
user140337
  • 9
  • 2
  • There may also have been some advancements in medicine between 1850 and 1900. This does not really address the question sorry. – Chad Jun 29 '15 at 20:32
-1

I'm willing to bet infant mortality had something to do with it. If you have a person who died at 70, and a person who died shortly after childbirth, and those 2 are your sample basis, the average life expectancy is 35.

I know this source is dubious, but http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm . This is a CDC document that covers the infant mortality rate in the US since 1900. It states that the infant mortality rate was over 10% in the US as of 1900. That's going to be a major drain on life expectancy. "And women dying in childbirth is going to lower numbers too".

Nate Watson
  • 115
  • 1