From: ROCxolan@t-online.de   
      
   David E. Milligan wrote:   
   >          When Xena was transported into Arminestra (more about THAT   
   > later), she was an old woman. But considering that people back then   
   > didn't live very long, and led *very* hard lives,   
      
   Neither of that is generally true. There were always some very old   
   people, like in every village, it's the high infant mortality that kept   
   the average age and life expectancy down. Also, people had more   
   children, so young people formed a much bigger part of the population.   
   Once you made it to adulthood, you had a fair chance to live long.   
      
   If you look at the population pyramid of a poor country, you'll see that   
   there are people above the age of 80.   
      
   Nor is it generally true that people led *very* hard lives in the past.   
   It depended on factors such as area, subsistence form, and social   
   status. In fertile areas, even farmers could lead relatively comfortable   
   lives. India has many quite fertile areas too, and in the country, many   
   still live like a thousand years ago. Those who were not farmers (and   
   Arminestra doesn't seem like a farmer) generally did not have to work   
   that hard, I'd say.   
      
   It is known from observations of hunter-gatherer tribes in modern times   
   that they have a lot of leisure. Three or four days a week is enough for   
   survival, and this doesn't include the nights anyway. In the High Middle   
   Ages, townspeople worked surprisingly few days in the year and week, and   
   hours in the day. Prehistorical Japan was so fertile that the indigenous   
   people could lead sedentary lives, at a time when they were still   
   hunterer-gatherers and did not practice farming.   
      
   Let's not forget that humans have been living as nomads for hundreds of   
   thousands of years, and as farmers for thousands of years. They have   
   been living in industrialised societies for not much more than a hundred   
   years, and in computerised societies for a few decades. Still, human   
   bodies have hardly changed since thousands of years. We have evolved for   
   living nomadic lives out in the wilderness first and foremost,   
   everything else is a secondary development whose ultimate benefit is   
   unclear.   
      
   When I became aware of this, I was very surprised myself. People in   
   highly industrialised societies, despite their vastly increased   
   education, resources, possibilities and choices, are not necessarily   
   healthier or lead easier lives. It seems to me often that despite our   
   wealth, we are poorer in the basic things that make life actually worth   
   living.   
      
   It may have become a cliché, but why are we so unhappy despite all the   
   abundance? Why do we have so long lives, but so little time?   
      
   Sorry, I'm getting into preaching mode.   
      
   > was about 50, more or less.   
      
   She could well have been a lot older, as a holy woman. Even if she lived   
   an ascetic life.   
      
   --   
      
   Florian   
   GGGHD, MWFA, HCNB   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)