I don't think I've ever seen somebody actually run with this idea before. It feels sort of like a reverse-Logan's Run scenario in a lot of ways. Not just in the obvious either but in how things like the veneration of the elderly, the hallowing of traditions, the importance of writing are directly contrasted to that setting.
For these teenagers, growing up in a rapidly expanding and overcrowded London, 26% had not completed puberty before they died at 25 years of age.
I really wanted to do a scenario, for this but everything I thought of felt like "butterfly geocide" just because of how much changes. Granted I was trying to stick to a very hard style of alternate history that most stories wouldn't have to.I don't think I've ever seen somebody actually run with this idea before. It feels sort of like a reverse-Logan's Run scenario in a lot of ways. Not just in the obvious either but in how things like the veneration of the elderly, the hallowing of traditions, the importance of writing are directly contrasted to that setting.
Makes me wonder how those people would react to knowing that there are some people today that have that many kids. I know some families that are that large.Great topic for an article. I find it to be the most annoying misconception about history - on every programme like "Who Do You Think You Are?", without fail, every celebrity finds an ancestor in the 1700s or before who lived to 79 or whatever and then in surprised because of this misconception. Real example of people not understanding how statistical averages work (and perhaps not being aware of infant mortality, hence those programmes usually involve people being surprised at their ancestors having 12 children and thinking that's unusual for the time).
Must be why washday was only once a weekThe washing machines of these pre-modern people must have been running 24/7.
Now I'm wondering if the "later" puberty somehow had an effect on their death. Would they have survived what ever killed them if they finished maturity?I was reading an interesting study of medieval remains by a University of Reading archaeologist, which had this tidbit:
Now, this is specifically in London, where conditions were worse, particularly contributing to a lower life expectancy and higher age of sexual maturity, but it made me wonder how this would interact with a world in which life expectancy universally (not just in cities) was very low.
Well, aging as opposed to dying does seem to be something people did faster in earlier times. When I look at people in my age cohort, and compare them to pictures of earlier generations, it jumps at me how almost everyone back then looks older than their age by contemporary standards.Indeed. It's a refreshingly interesting take on the old myth of people aging faster in pre-modern times (and such illustrious writers as Asimov were prone to falling into that trap).
Honestly, the more I know people with kids, the more I realize that the nuclear family is an unsustainable arrangement. Raising children is a communal affair.I would expect clan or clan-like family structures to be more popular, and longer lasting. The advantage would be ensuring there would be someone around to take care of the younger children when both their parents die not long after birth.
As I parent & an eldest brother who helped raise my youngest siblings, I always find the phrase "it takes a community" to be too oversimplified.Honestly, the more I know people with kids, the more I realize that the nuclear family is an unsustainable arrangement. Raising children is a communal affair.