The modern distribution of age at death is substantially novel. In today's wealthiest countries most people die at an age near their life expectancy, but historically a third of people died as young children and the remainder died over a wide range of ages.
Life expectancy at birth, an average of possible ages at death, is now a measure of central tendency, but even just 100 years ago the distribution of age at death didn't really have a central tendency. Interpreting it as if it did gives a misleading impression of past cultures.
Inspired by Hans Rosling, I went looking for life tables. Appropriately enough, his native Sweden birthed the first National Statistical Office, with 270 years of life tables available. That's enough history to show how the world used to be, and as a rich country Sweden also shows us where the whole world is (hopefully) heading.
Back when life expectancy was mid-thirties, you were more likely to die in your seventies than in your thirties. If you interpret a life expectancy of 36 to mean ""most people died around age 36"" you might incorrectly imagine a world with very few people over 50.
Author: Aaron Schumacher
Source: https://planspace.org/20200806-life_expectancy_is_historically_misleading/
