PEACE: Smart's relatives

Andy Robertson · 19 Oct 2002, 15:46 · from urth-v0210.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Andy Robertson" <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Subject: Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart's relatives
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 16:46:59 +0100
Message-ID: <urth-v0210-1881 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0210/1881.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I have been kind of out of things for the past few weeks, but I will just
drop a note about life expectancy:

It has **always** been the case that someone who reaches 20 can expect to
get to 60.   This is so now in very poor countries.   Life expectancies are
averages, not limits.

What has changed is the proportion of people who get to puberty.  There used
to be a *lot* of children dying before reproductive age.  Fewer now.

    hartshorn

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Andre-Driussi" <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
To: <urth at urth.net>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart's relatives

> Roy quoted me and wrote:
> >>Let's say Smart was born in 1900, when life expectancy for a man was
around
> >>48 (iirc), and died in 1963 at age 63.  Any relative who was old enough
to
> >>help him when he was 20-something would be 70 or 80-something after he
> >died!

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net