• ButteryMonkey@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 days ago

    Lots of babies and children died before adulthood though, so its actually not a bad bet for 25 as an average birthing age for one that survives to adulthood. Not that every woman would lose her first 2 kids or whatever but enough certainly did to drive the average up somewhat from what it would be with modern medicine.

    • nymnympseudonym@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      Always remember: these people were DNA-identical to us. All this life-saving, life-extending, life-improving technology… is always just 2-3 generations from poof

    • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      i think it’s also worth noting that a whole lot of children basically died due to malnutrition … think about it. contraception was not existent, so if a woman gets pregnant 8 times, but the family can only feed 2 children, that effectively means that 6 would essentially starve (or die due to other “preventable” diseases, but actually the better prevention than modern medicine is just food, since enough food strengthenes the immune system).

      even if you had modern medicine at the time, children would still starve; the thing that really drives down child mortality is just a lower birth-rate altogether, since the family can still feed 2 children, regardless of whether they actually make 2 or 8 babies.

      • arrow74@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Also decreases in available food impacts fertility and menstrual cycles. If you had very little food you are likely to start menstruation later in life. If you have a hard time getting food you can have an irregular cycle leading to less ovulation periods per year