NationStates Jolt Archive

I do a lot of genealogy research and have had the luck to trace my linage fairly far back in time. One thing that struck me as odd while doing my research was that after removing from my tree the people who had died from disease/plagues, childbirth/birth, and wars for the most part lived to be what we would even today consider quite old. I was always under the assumption that it was only in our modern times because of better health care, better medicines that the individual human had such a long lifespan. But from a random sampling of people who didn’t die early from the conditions I stated before, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Yaroslav I, Czar of Russia 978-1054, died 76 y/o

David I, King of Scotland 1080-1153, died 73 y/o

Agnes De Baudemont 1130-1202, died 72 y/o

Robert Bruce 1220-1295, died 75 y/o

Margaret Plantagenet 1320-1399, died 79 y/o

Ann Bolyn (Lady Shelton) 1475-1554, died 79 y/o

William Illsley 1545-1631, died 86 y/o

Thomas Gilmore 1670-1750, died 80 y/o

Anne Adams, g g g grandmother of John Steinbeck 1740-1825, died 85 y/o

Mary Jane Dennis 1884-1970, died 86 y/o

Now mind you this isn’t taken from scientific research, just the names and ages of the death of average people in my linage. But it got me to thinking….

In a thousand years with all our modern drugs the life expectancy of mankind has only grown by 10 to 15 years (at least in my family). That really isn’t much. From what I see what has really happened is that more people live longer than they did in the past. I theorize that modern drugs and better health care have done little more than to contribute to the over population of our world.

What do you think?

2 thoughts


overpopulation isnt rampant in countries with good health care. it is driven by those areas with terrible medical care that leaves you prematurely old and in need of children to take care of you.

the bigger benefit of good medical care isnt just a few extra years of life but more like 40 years of extra really good life. people used to be old in their 50s and all worn out by their 60s. now you can look forward to not only living to your 80s but having an active interesting life in your 80s.

It does both. The key to long lives without mass over-population is birth control with death control. See most of Europe. In order to achieve this education of females is vital.

Kinda relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Timeline_for_humans

2 thoughts


overpopulation isnt rampant in countries with good health care. it is driven by those areas with terrible medical care that leaves you prematurely old and in need of children to take care of you.

the bigger benefit of good medical care isnt just a few extra years of life but more like 40 years of extra really good life. people used to be old in their 50s and all worn out by their 60s. now you can look forward to not only living to your 80s but having an active interesting life in your 80s.

Good points. But in my research people in my family lived well into their 70's. And the children werent there to take care of them, they had so many kids to work the farms to feed the growing population.

One question off the the issue...did I do better this thread? LOLOLOLOLOL

It does both. The key to long lives without mass over-population is birth control with death control. See most of Europe. In order to achieve this education of females is vital.

I totally agree.

I'm going to play the devils advocate and ask...

What if we didn't promote drugs and health care? What do you think the continued life expectency would be if we let mother nature do her thing?

One question off the the issue...did I do better this thread? LOLOLOLOLOL

Up until the LOLOLOLOLOL? Yes.

I totally agree.

I'm going to play the devils advocate and ask...

What if we didn't promote drugs and health care? What do you think the continued life expectency would be if we let mother nature do her thing?

Probably around 30ish. That was about the life expectancy in Classical Rome and Greece. (from the link someone posted above).
Although if we did discontinue promoting it people would still want and use it, it would only be if there was no access to drugs/santisation/healthcare that mother nature could to her thing.
(sorry if my above response seemed mean, it was meant as a gentle tease.)

Although as humans are creations of nature, technically any medicine that we create/use could be considered as "mother nature-ish" as a dog healing a wound by licking it etc.

Up until the LOLOLOLOLOL? Yes.

I'm going to take that as a good thing. Thank you!

I kinda wonder if we were intended to live so long. As a kid I worked in a nursing home. I saw elderly people stuffed full of drugs supposedly to help them live a longer better life. Most that I talked to said they were tired of life and ready to move on. Said they only hung around because their children didn't want to let them go.

I kinda wonder if we were intended to live so long. As a kid I worked in a nursing home. I saw elderly people stuffed full of drugs supposedly to help them live a longer better life. Most that I talked to said they were tired of life and ready to move on. Said they only hung around because their children didn't want to let them go.

"Intended" generally implies that you need someone to do the intending. Not where you want your thread to go. Although, many (including me) world argue that euthenasia is need for this exact reason. Once life is no longer desirable extending it ruins the point of life and brings only physical and emotional pain. We tend to lose sight of this in an effort to.... I don't even know.

I'll have to look it up when I'm not so tired, but the other day I read an article somewhere about the growing population of elderly people in prisons. It said something about the huge cost to tax payers because of their health care costs. Mind you I am against anyone suffering needlessly... but from a none emotional view point.... without all those great drugs to keep them going there wouldn't be that problem.

I'll have to look it up when I'm not so tired, but the other day I read an article somewhere about the growing population of elderly people in prisons. It said something about the huge cost to tax payers because of their health care costs. Mind you I am against anyone suffering needlessly... but from a none emotional view point.... without all those great drugs to keep them going there wouldn't be that problem.

I could keep on agreeing with you but.... well, that isn't the point of NSG. Infact, I think that that might be considered blasphemy against Myrth so I'll just finish by saying that euthenasia and the right to end your life/refude treatment are very important both for those who are suffering and for soceity as a whole and it is insane to be against them as long as said person is in their right mind, able to make the decision.

I could keep on agreeing with you but.... well, that isn't the point of NSG. Infact, I think that that might be considered blasphemy against Myrth so I'll just finish by saying that euthenasia and the right to end your life/refude treatment are very important both for those who are suffering and for soceity as a whole and it is insane to be against them as long as said person is in their right mind, able to make the decision.

In a perfect world..... ack! that wouldn't be any fun!

I think you're confusing things. Yes, people did live to a very ripe old age in the past, but the point is that, in modern times (Assuming a first world nation and all that) MORE people are living longer. Life expectancy is an average, not a promise after all, so if back in the day you find someone who lived to 76 and the life expectancy at the time was 40, that 76'er was a statistical outlier, a fluke in other words.

Or to put it another way, Japan has the highest life expectancy on the planet at some 80+ odd years. Japan also has the highest number of people over 100. Does that mean that Japan's life expectancy should actually be over 100? No, just that there's more flukes than otherwise right now.

That said, there's also a lot more than modern medicine at work, nutrition and change in working conditions have made a huge contribution as well.

And to add on, your list is filled with people who would be on the top of the heap, i.e. getting the best of care and food so them living long isn't that surprising after all.

What do you think?

You're related to the Czar of Russia and the King of Scotland?

I think you're confusing things. Yes, people did live to a very ripe old age in the past, but the point is that, in modern times (Assuming a first world nation and all that) MORE people are living longer. Life expectancy is an average, not a promise after all, so if back in the day you find someone who lived to 76 and the life expectancy at the time was 40, that 76'er was a statistical outlier, a fluke in other words.

Or to put it another way, Japan has the highest life expectancy on the planet at some 80+ odd years. Japan also has the highest number of people over 100. Does that mean that Japan's life expectancy should actually be over 100? No, just that there's more flukes than otherwise right now.

That said, there's also a lot more than modern medicine at work, nutrition and change in working conditions have made a huge contribution as well.

And to add on, your list is filled with people who would be on the top of the heap, i.e. getting the best of care and food so them living long isn't that surprising after all.

Also, is there not also a difference between life expectancy and life span?

I can remember being told (ie cannot be fully sure it is true) that the human lifespan has been largely constant throughout history, but we are only seeing it now due to modern medicine stopping many dying at childbirth and from easily preventable dieases etc.

You're related to the Czar of Russia and the King of Scotland?

Plus assorted other royals apparently

Yaroslav I, Czar of Russia 978-1054, died 76 y/o

David I, King of Scotland 1080-1153, died 73 y/o

Robert Bruce 1220-1295, died 75 y/o

Margaret Plantagenet 1320-1399, died 79 y/o

Ann Bolyn (Lady Shelton) 1475-1554, died 79 y/o

....just the names and ages of the death of average people in my linage.

You’re ancestors were from the Scottish, English and Russian royal households? By any chance, is your name Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor? :p

Seriously though, unless you are in the direct British royal household, how on Earth are you able to trace your family back to 1080 CE? Written records of genealogy, parish records, census data, etc., don’t start till at least the 1500s, so if some website or other genealogy service is claiming the above, you’ve been taken for a ride.

Now mind you this isn’t taken from scientific research, just the names and ages of the death of average people in my linage.

If those are the *average* people in your lineage, I am really curious to see a list of your more important/famous/influential ancestors.

My lineage isn't quite so spectacular, but does include Yok, who, in 38,454 BC (in May of that year) proved the Theory of Contextual Velocity by demonstrating that the speed people attain while running really is dependent on the speed of the bear chasing them.

The world really isn't overpopulated or even heading that way. The west has very low birth rates and will need to turn to immigration from the developing world to maintain the population. So all medicine and science has done is greatly enhance the life span and quality of humanity.

You're related to the Czar of Russia and the King of Scotland?

LOL Yup! Kings, Queens, Bootleggers, and thieves too!

Also, is there not also a difference between life expectancy and life span?

I can remember being told (ie cannot be fully sure it is true) that the human lifespan has been largely constant throughout history, but we are only seeing it now due to modern medicine stopping many dying at childbirth and from easily preventable dieases etc.

That makes sense. So I wonder what our optimum age really is? Could it be true in the beginning...like it says in the bible... mankind lived hundreds of years?

You’re ancestors were from the Scottish, English and Russian royal households? By any chance, is your name Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor? :p

Seriously though, unless you are in the direct British royal household, how on Earth are you able to trace your family back to 1080 CE? Written records of genealogy, parish records, census data, etc., don’t start till at least the 1500s, so if some website or other genealogy service is claiming the above, you’ve been taken for a ride.

Genealogy is not a pure or exact science. But my DNA markers do point to being of those lines.... LOL like it really matters! But it does look I have a better change to grow to be a really old fart!

You’re ancestors were from the Scottish, English and Russian royal households? By any chance, is your name Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor? :p

Seriously though, unless you are in the direct British royal household, how on Earth are you able to trace your family back to 1080 CE? Written records of genealogy, parish records, census data, etc., don’t start till at least the 1500s, so if some website or other genealogy service is claiming the above, you’ve been taken for a ride.

There are other sources out there too. The "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" contains the original and authentic testimony of contemporary writers to the most important transactions of our forefathers, both by sea and land, from their first arrival in the country of Britain to the year 1154.

Genealogy is not a pure or exact science. But my DNA markers do point to being of those lines...

There are other sources out there too. The “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” contains the original and authentic testimony of contemporary writers to the most important transactions of our forefathers, both by sea and land, from their first arrival in the country of Britain to the year 1154.
The texts comprising the Chronicle are of immense historical value, but they’re not much use to the genealogist. They don’t exactly note down the parentage of every child in England, let alone the British Isles.

As for DNA markers, I’m sure any white European/American shares some DNA with the British royal household(s). I’m not trying to berate; I’ve helped my Grandfather out with our family tree and I know how murky and muddled genealogy gets pre-1600. It’s nigh on impossible to claim anything but the most liberal understanding of ancestry to people in the Middle Ages and earlier.

Interesting fact: overpopulation is worst in places with lower life expectancy.

Life expectancy rises as countries become more developed, and alongside that birthrates begin to decline as women have fewer children. So, actually, there's no real correlation or causation between rising life expectancy and birth rates; in fact, many of the countries with the highest life expectancy actually have birth rates that are at or below replacement.

In fact, it seems like longer lifespans are the replacement for population growth in a lot of ways. Instead of needing more kids to do the same thing, we simply keep the people we have alive longer. That actually has a lot of benefits, economically speaking and reduces the overall amount of resources needed for the same effect. Child rearing becomes more and more of a choice than a necessity, since the productive life of each person is extended considerably.

The texts comprising the Chronicle are of immense historical value, but they’re not much use to the genealogist. They don’t exactly note down the parentage of every child in England, let alone the British Isles.

As for DNA markers, I’m sure any white European/American shares some DNA with the British royal household(s). I’m not trying to berate; I’ve helped my Grandfather out with our family tree and I know how murky and muddled genealogy gets pre-1600. It’s nigh on impossible to claim anything but the most liberal understanding of ancestry to people in the Middle Ages and earlier.

I'm sure you would greatly enjoy taking a look at my research. Not to toot my horn, but I am a professional researcher in the area of genealogy. I actually sometimes make money at it! But that isn't the point of this thread.

I'm just wondering if more healther people who live longer lead to a larger population.

I'm just wondering if more healther people who live longer lead to a larger population.

Not really. African countries have the highest population growth rates and some of the biggest problems with overpopulation despite having the lowest living standards and worst life expectancy in the world.

I’m sure you would greatly enjoy taking a look at my research. Not to toot my horn, but I am a professional researcher in the area of genealogy. I actually sometimes make money at it! But that isn’t the point of this thread.
Sorry to hijack, but if you have established a direct link back to 1080 CE and earlier I’ll be happily surprised.

Where did you go to to find information pre-Parish records, census data, etc., assuming you were looking at British ancestry?

I’m just wondering if more healther people who live longer lead to a larger population.
Yes, obviously.

Though it doesn’t, necessarily, mean overpopulation.

You know, your right. The world is becoming overpopulated and our mother, the earth, is suffering under the strain of all these extra evil humans. There is only one thing to do, round up everyone who is not of a certain political ideology, ethnicity, appearance, nationality, height, forehead shape, etc. and place them all in camps where they will be castrated and worked or starved to death. Nope, nothing wrong with that. And it will save te rest of us from the widespread famines and plagues that are ravaging over 99% of the world right now. You know, the ones that were predicted a couple centuries ago and have been repeated several times since. What was it called, a Malthusian catastrophe? They must come true or people wouldn't keep making such idiotic claims, right?

Interesting fact: overpopulation is worst in places with lower life expectancy.

Life expectancy rises as countries become more developed, and alongside that birthrates begin to decline as women have fewer children. So, actually, there's no real correlation or causation between rising life expectancy and birth rates; in fact, many of the countries with the highest life expectancy actually have birth rates that are at or below replacement.

In fact, it seems like longer lifespans are the replacement for population growth in a lot of ways. Instead of needing more kids to do the same thing, we simply keep the people we have alive longer. That actually has a lot of benefits, economically speaking and reduces the overall amount of resources needed for the same effect. Child rearing becomes more and more of a choice than a necessity, since the productive life of each person is extended considerably.

Someone hand me a calculator!..... let's say in a 1000 year time period, one group of people lived to be 40, each had 8 children who lived to be 40. The other group lived to be 80 and had 2 child who lived to be 80. At a medium period which group would have the largest population living?

And anyway.... who want to live forever? ;)

Sorry to hijack, but if you have established a direct link back to 1080 CE and earlier I’ll be happily surprised.

Where did you go to to find information pre-Parish records, census data, etc., assuming you were looking at British ancestry?


Yes, obviously.

Though it doesn’t, necessarily, mean overpopulation.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh! I am the Queen of England!

You know, your right. The world is becoming overpopulated and our mother, the earth, is suffering under the strain of all these extra evil humans. There is only one thing to do, round up everyone who is not of a certain political ideology, ethnicity, appearance, nationality, height, forehead shape, etc. and place them all in camps where they will be castrated and worked or starved to death. Nope, nothing wrong with that. And it will save te rest of us from the widespread famines and plagues that are ravaging over 99% of the world right now. You know, the ones that were predicted a couple centuries ago and have been repeated several times since. What was it called, a Malthusian catastrophe? They must come true or people wouldn't keep making such idiotic claims, right?

Naw, not quite the kinda party I wanna go to.

And anyway.... who want to live forever? ;)
I would! I'm terrified of death. I'd want docs to yank out my failing organs and replace them with clones or machines. I'd want to keep going until my brain starts to fail and even then I'd hope that it could be replaced with a computer or something. Why wouldn't you want to live forever?

I would! I'm terrified of death. I'd want docs to yank out my failing organs and replace them with clones or machines. I'd want to keep going until my brain starts to fail and even then I'd hope that it could be replaced with a computer or something. Why wouldn't you want to live forever?

Your question takes this thread to a never ending debate, which was not my intent. But to answer, I believe, or hope that there is more to what we are than just flesh and bones. this old body can't take me near as far as I want to see and experience.

Your question takes this thread to a never ending debate, which was not my intent. But to answer, I believe, or hope that there is more to what we are than just flesh and bones. this old body can't take me near as far as I want to see and experience.
So you think this is all just a test to show an all-knowing god whether or not we're worthy of paradise? Or do you believe in the John Edward interpretation where you're stuck floating around the world for all eternity, unable to interact with anyone except some psychic(s) who charge people for "readings"? Or do you buy into the Cult of Scientology and all that crap?

Yeah, but although as a young healthy person, 15 years may not seem significant to you, someone at their deathbed would find even 15 extra days to be significant. ;)

Someone hand me a calculator!..... let's say in a 1000 year time period, one group of people lived to be 40, each had 8 children who lived to be 40. The other group lived to be 80 and had 2 child who lived to be 80. At a medium period which group would have the largest population living?

The first group. Even though the second group lives longer, they're still only having two kids; regardless of how long they are alive, the population is only increasing by two. The first group is having more kids, so regardless of how long they live the population is still rising at a minimum rate of 4x every 40 years.

In fact, if they only had two kids, the population would presumably not change significantly.

Bah! Medicine has merely extended the lives of people, but many of them would have had kids when they died anyways. Today, though, we have our ancestors living to see grandkids and great-grandkids.

But if you want to do something about population overload, well, humanity has a really nice method of taking care of that problem.

'Tis called War.

What is it good for?

Keeping the world's population down and offering economic boosts to the capitalistic profiteers that know how to make a buck. Just as long as somebody steals all of the WMD's in the world, and shuts down my various doomsday devices that I haven't dismantled yet (sorry, I had an agry childhood, and I'm fixing that now), then really, war is great for thinning the herd.

And for those that argue against war as being terrible, well, Darwin's Theory...

Oh, and to the OP, congratulations! We're related! I too am descend from the old Scottish royalty. And the Welsh princes. And other kings besides. And peasants! No, wait, not the peasants. Yes to the kings. But I'm also descended from mercenaries, vagabonds, and various people that fought for their bread... *goes off muttering about the importance of bloodshed in the family's history*

And for those that argue against war as being terrible, well, Darwin's Theory...

It does a good job of selecting out the people dumb enough to attack others rather than work together and trade for what they need...

It does a good job of selecting out the people dumb enough to attack others rather than work together and trade for what they need...

Exactly. Though it also weeds out the over aggressive, as they tend to be the first ones to die. See, the culture and stress on trading has lead to our current over population problems. The right balance of aggression, a la Darwin, keeps us at manageable levels. :cool:

So you think this is all just a test to show an all-knowing god whether or not we're worthy of paradise? Or do you believe in the John Edward interpretation where you're stuck floating around the world for all eternity, unable to interact with anyone except some psychic(s) who charge people for "readings"? Or do you buy into the Cult of Scientology and all that crap?

I aint gonna go there! No Man or woman alive knows the answer to that question for sure.

Yeah, but although as a young healthy person, 15 years may not seem significant to you, someone at their deathbed would find even 15 extra days to be significant. ;)

Quality versus quantity verses length. There has to be some sort of balance. When there isn't that's when life gets messed up. If you have a population of people with good health there is no need for drugs?

Oh, and to the OP, congratulations! We're related! I too am descend from the old Scottish royalty. And the Welsh princes. And other kings besides. And peasants! No, wait, not the peasants. Yes to the kings. But I'm also descended from mercenaries, vagabonds, and various people that fought for their bread... *goes off muttering about the importance of bloodshed in the family's history*

Hey someone has to do it! And I bet you can guess what end of the stick I would rather be on!

Better medicine has led to people being more capable of surviving injury and disease - it hasnt led to any significant change in humans. Evolution simply does not work in terms of only a couple centuries.

If given proper nutrition and a healthy life, people in the bronze age were just as able to live as long as we do. Proper nutrition and avoiding injury or disease was just fairly rare.

As societies develop, they slowly adjust their notions of family size and reproduction. Lower child mortality has led to lower emphasis on having large broods of children. Better likelihood of staying healthy longer has led to delaying starting a family until later in life. Society slowly adjusts to the development of better health.

Obviously there is a slight problem with that - comparatively primitive cultures that are suddenly exposed to drastically improved health. Their society has not had time to adjust, so they still have large broods, but many more of them survive. People live longer, and survive childbirth better, so women have even larger families. This leads to massive overpopulation in those areas that have seen the greatest leap in medical technology. I'm not saying it is the only reason, but it is a major contributing factor to the situation in poor nations.

Thats the point, especially when it comes to disease, plagues, and chilbirth, but stiull when it comes to wars, thanks to modern medicine you are more likely to survive. This is what pushes the average lifespan up.

You're related to the Czar of Russia and the King of Scotland?

Not being funny, chances are that most Western Europeans are descendents of William the Bastard (a.k.a. William the Conqueror, William I of England, et cetera). If I remember a calculation correctly, if there had been no intermarriage, we would have 1.1 billion unique ancestors living at the time of William the Bastard.

That makes sense. So I wonder what our optimum age really is? Could it be true in the beginning...like it says in the bible... mankind lived hundreds of years?

Probably not, though is you want to consult the Bible look at Psalms 90.

[1] LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
[2] Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
[3] Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
[4] For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
[5] Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
[6] In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.
[7] For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.
[8] Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.
[9] For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told.
[10] The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.[11] Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath.
[12] So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.
[13] Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants.
[14] O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
[15] Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil.
[16] Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children.
[17] And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.

Three score and ten is fairly common (if old) turn of phrase in English over here.

NB: Score = 20

I'm sure you would greatly enjoy taking a look at my research. Not to toot my horn, but I am a professional researcher in the area of genealogy. I actually sometimes make money at it! But that isn't the point of this thread.

I thought you worked in advertising (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13089897#post13089897) :confused:

And for those that argue against war as being terrible, well, Darwin’s Theory...
Darwin said/wrote nothing of the sort.

His theory of evolution takes into account evolutionary adaptation to changes in environment, not some weird “survival of the fittest”, the strong living, the weak dying nonsense.

Tut tut tut.

It does a good job of selecting out the people dumb enough to attack others rather than work together and trade for what they need...

That sounds nice but ignores historical reality. People dumb enough to attack others have done a damn thorough job of NOT being selected out- Europeans in North America, Arabs in North Africa, and Bantus in southern Africa, for example.

Perhaps Dumb is not planning a proper defense of a civilization when threatened, under the illusion that trade and and cooperation will save you. We could ask the Iroquois about that, or the San people of South Africa who were overrun and had their civilization destroyed by the Nguni who arrived from the north and today are "indigenous". Or any one of the countless civilizations slaughtered and buried by a Dumb Invasion. There was a thriving, smart, trading, cooperating, Buddhist civilization in what is now Afghanistan, once. The region was once quite wealthy. They've been dead now for centuries, and the last of their great monuments got blasted apart by the Taliban.

No, I'd say that the historical record shows that attacking others may be cruel and immoral, but it is only dumb when you've grossly under estimated the fighting ability of the others. Otherwise, it's a well proven means to gaining land, slaves, and gold.

Probably not, though is you want to consult the Bible look at Psalms 90.

[1] LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
[2] Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
[3] Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
[4] For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
[5] Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
[6] In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.
[7] For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.
[8] Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.
[9] For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told.
[10] The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.[11] Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath.
[12] So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.
[13] Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants.
[14] O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
[15] Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil.
[16] Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children.
[17] And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.

Three score and ten is fairly common (if old) turn of phrase in English over here.

NB: Score = 20



I thought you worked in advertising (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13089897#post13089897) :confused:

So that's 70 as a norm and 80 if healthy? Geesh! I wish the bible would of just came out and plainly said what they meant!

I do working advertising. Genealogy is a sideline hobby I sometimes get paid for. What can I say? I keep busy!

after removing from my tree the people who had died from disease/plagues, childbirth/birth, and wars

You eliminated everything...?

Procreation is the number one instinct in animals. It has little to do with health or wealth. It enables is the continuence of a certain strain of animals. The abilility to copulate and reproduce is most likey the last thing one will lose as can be seen in extreemly poor, unhealthy and uneducated populations.

What I see is that mankind in the most over populated areas have lost the instinct to migrate to areas where there is enough food and water to sustain life??

Procreation is the number one instinct in animals. It has little to do with health or wealth. It enables is the continuence of a certain strain of animals. The abilility to copulate and reproduce is most likey the last thing one will lose as can be seen in extreemly poor, unhealthy and uneducated populations.

What I see is that mankind in the most over populated areas have lost the instinct to migrate to areas where there is enough food and water to sustain life??

er, notsomuch? Besides, when they try to move (the ones that can) people complain about losing their jobs to immigrants.

You eliminated everything...?

Not everything silly! I kept the women who didn't die during child birth or shortly thereafter, children who didn't die young from diease, people who weren't effected by disease and plaques, and men who didn't get killed off in wars. I kept the people it appeared to die from the things that happen usually from old age.

Not everything silly! I kept the women who didn't die during child birth or shortly thereafter, children who didn't die young from diease, people who weren't effected by disease and plaques, and men who didn't get killed off in wars. I kept the people it appeared to die from the things that happen usually from old age.

but isn't the whole point of medicine, like, diseases, and injuries? All you've really left is nutrition, which, well...

but isn't the whole point of medicine, like, diseases, and injuries? All you've really left is nutrition, which, well...

That's my whole point. Do modern drugs really make that big of a difference, or are they just keeping more people alive longer, especially in areas where people would die because of the effects of over population.

That's my whole point. Do modern drugs really make that big of a difference, or are they just keeping more people alive longer, especially in areas where people would die because of the effects of over population.

I'm confused, isn't more people alive longer the difference modern drugs are supposed to be making?

Les deux.

I'm confused, isn't more people alive longer the difference modern drugs are supposed to be making?

Yes! And my question is does that lead to over population?

Yes! And my question is does that lead to over population?

In the sense that it lowers the death rate without lowering the birth rate? Yeah, sure, why not?

Which brings me to the point that if modern drugs make it so that humans can live longer lives and produce more offspring who continue to over populate the world which just makes the existence of more hardier strains of diseases, what the heck is the need for all these modern day medicines other than to make the drug companies rich?

Which brings me to the point that if modern drugs make it so that humans can live longer lives and produce more offspring who continue to over populate the world which just makes the existence of more hardier strains of diseases, what the heck is the need for all these modern day medicines other than to make the drug companies rich?

Err, your chain of cause and effect is a little wonky, but they exist cuz people don't like getting sick. Is there a specific line we can draw, "anything before here is a modern drug"? I mean, we had drugs before we had companies.

Regardless, the solution here isn't to slag on drug companies (though they may deserve it for other reasons), but to help lower birth rates accordingly, which seems to come with advancement and education, especially of women.

Err, your chain of cause and effect is a little wonky, but they exist cuz people don't like getting sick. Is there a specific line we can draw, "anything before here is a modern drug"? I mean, we had drugs before we had companies.

Regardless, the solution here isn't to slag on drug companies (though they may deserve it for other reasons), but to help lower birth rates accordingly, which seems to come with advancement and education, especially of women.

LOL My chain of thought is usually a little wonky. People don't like a lot of things. They especially do not like the idea of death. But without death? As for modern drugs I mean synthesized man made drugs, medicines that are not out there freely growing by mother nature herself.

LOL My chain of thought is usually a little wonky. People don't like a lot of things. They especially do not like the idea of death. But without death? As for modern drugs I mean synthesized man made drugs, medicines that are not out there freely growing by mother nature herself.

Err, well, drugs rarely use synthesized elements, so...

Regardless, I don't get your point? drug companies try to make money? Yes. Medical drugs make people healthier? generally speaking, yes. Umm...drug companies are to blame for overpopulation? I wouldn't precisely agree...

So that's 70 as a norm and 80 if healthy? Geesh! I wish the bible would of just came out and plainly said what they meant!

Well Psalms is poetry, and it sounds more poetic that way. Also consider the first line of the Divine Comedy:

"Midway in the journey of life,
I came to myself in a dark wood,"

Fits the mood of the work better then "when I was forty I got lost in a wood." ;)

Also, score used to be a commonly used word to describe 20 (like dozen etc)

How big a factor IS modern drugs? It seems to me that clean water & toilet paper were bigger factors in extending average life spans than drugs. Remember, ancient cultures stunk in hygiene (literally).

Which brings me to the point that if modern drugs make it so that humans can live longer lives and produce more offspring who continue to over populate the world which just makes the existence of more hardier strains of diseases, what the heck is the need for all these modern day medicines other than to make the drug companies rich?

What about the contraceptive pill or any other contraceptive measure which has come about due to modern medicine?