I wouldn't argue with that for a moment. I would, however, add to it a little. Yes, we have far more sophisticated medical knowledge now they what was available back then. We also had plagues, massive pestilence problems and all that health food, organically grown back then. How does one argue that all those improvements and extended life span happened during the time when we were using chemicals to preserve our food and keep the insect populations down to a manageable number.
I might be wrong, but, those of us born in the late 40's have been, overall, more healthy and had less problems then today's super health conscience population does. The numbers aren't in yet. It appears that those of us that were born during that era are dying off now, but, we are also either entering or deeply encased in old age. Or at least what is considered old age for humans. Everyone one today has respiratory problems, allergies, and at the same time are obsessed with keeping their world, and everyone else's, free of all bacteria, yet are always either sick or at the very least, imagining that they are. It seems like everyone now is on some sort of "spectrum". If it was chemically induced shouldn't we have been more affected then today's generation. We lived in houses that were absolutely blue with cigarette smoke, yet do we have a disproportionate amount of illness due to that? And with no concern about the blatant use of chemicals in our lives. Our mothers smoked and drank during pregnancy and yet I'm not sure that the infant mortality rate was much higher then, then now. It surely was back when everyone was having home births. We grew up in a world that was so unconcerned about air pollution that cities were virtually invisible due to smog. Yet, we are still surviving. Yes, we will die because that is the cycle of life and one that I hope continues because it makes me ill to think that I might have to pay taxes for hundreds of years.
The preceding was a open display of my opinion on life and matters that seem to be questionable when it comes to just how much say we have in our life span or how much influence our way of life has on it. It seems that today's "scholars" will research anything and slant their findings in a manner that will support there own hypothesis. (there's usually grant money connected to the findings) We, in awe of all that scholarly stuff, accept their findings and run with it. Why because until someone else comes along and has a different hypothesis that contradicts the first one, what else do we have to go on. Case in point, look how many times opinion has fluctuated about the good or the bad of eating eggs. It has gone from bad to good to bad to good more times then Justin Bieber has done something stupid. End of current rant... I'm sure there will be more to follow, just on different subjects.
)