From: davideml@bellsouth.net   
      
           Stuff I didn't know much about. Interesting.   
           But that only reinforces my point -- Arminestra was much older than   
   Shakti, which would   
   mean that Gabrielle lived even longer than Xena than I first thought.   
           I don't have the birth records, but I always felt like Xena was about   
   30 when she and   
   Gabrielle met, and Gabrielle was 17 - 19. So if they were together in their   
   previous lives, then   
   "Xena" died 10 - 12 years before "Gabrielle".   
           I wonder if  Melinda outlived Janice, for a change.   
      
      
   "Florian Blaschke"  wrote in message   
   news:fisvjn$ij7$03$1@news.t-online.com...   
   > 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)