Unless you die of kidney failure as the result of your harsh diet, like her two siblings...
According to the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, we've seen dramatic improvements in lifespan in just the past few decades: "Under current mortality conditions, people who survive to age 65 can expect to live an average of 19.2 more years,
nearly 5 years longer than people age 65 in 1960."
For the majority of human existence, most people died before their 30th birthday, with life expectancy increasing in the late stone age, alongside all the troublesome unnatural cultural production.
> For the majority of human existence, most people died before their 30th birthday
The average life expectancy was greatly skewed by tremendous rates of infant mortality: mid-19th century, infant mortality was estimated at 340/1000 for US blacks (216/1000 for US whites). So for the majority of human existence 1/3 to 1/2 died before their 5th birthday, the rest had good chances to live into their 40s or 50s.
That's why life expectancy at birth is not a good measure of the kind of age people could reasonably expect to reach. For instance according to wikipedia Paleolithic LEB was 33, but if an individual reached 15 their life expectancy grew to 54. Same story in classical rome or medieval England, LEB in the high 20s but once an initial gap passed, effective life expectancy grew to 50~60 (total)
> So for the majority of human existence 1/3 to 1/2 died before their 5th birthday
Correction: 1/3 to 2/3, early 18th century london had an infant mortality rate of 745/1000.
> Same story in classical rome or medieval England, LEB in the high 20s but once an initial gap passed, effective life expectancy grew to 50~60 (total)
Addition: an english peer (aristocrat) of the late middle-ages (15th~16th century) having reached 21 had a total life expectancy of ~70, LEB for peers was in the low 30s.
Essentially, for most of human history life expectancy was highly bimodal, a large part of the population would die extremely early, and most of the rest would make it to (what is now qualified as) middle to late adulthood.
Re: kidney failure. Doesn't it seem odd that they survived for decades, then died just after modern contact? There's evidence that modern processed foods have a terrible effect on people accustomed to traditional diets. Just the sudden increase in nutritional value might be difficult to adjust to.
According to the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, we've seen dramatic improvements in lifespan in just the past few decades: "Under current mortality conditions, people who survive to age 65 can expect to live an average of 19.2 more years, nearly 5 years longer than people age 65 in 1960."
For the majority of human existence, most people died before their 30th birthday, with life expectancy increasing in the late stone age, alongside all the troublesome unnatural cultural production.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/magazine/who-lives-longest...)