They were not, were also often malnourished. Thus each larger epidemics killed a significant number of the population. Not to mention such events like hunger or war.
These popular opinions concern the stereotypical image of the Middle Ages. First, the European Middle Ages are only part of world history. Secondly, the vision of the past as a series of wars and disasters is wrong. Certain periods in certain places were more brutal... but the same can be said about these times. Have you forgotten about the two World Wars? Or about contemporary ethnic massacres? Or modern epidemics? Or modern totalitarianisms that have killed millions? All of them are more fierce due to the development of technology and changes in social relations.
And yet there's still enough for the rest of the population so that famine is but an ancient memory. Also we've reached unprecedented levels of literacy and general education, while 250 years ago only very few people could attend schools or universities.
Hunger is a phenomenon that happens from time to time in various places. There is no reason to think that populations in the past were constantly hungry. Moreover, in the 20th century, hunger mainly affected the so-called third world. In the 21st century it will be everyone's problem, all thanks to industrialism and capitalism.
I know enough examples of meritocratic careers even in my closest vicinity to know that our situation is miles better than under the rigid social and legal structures of feudalism.
Heh. You ignored my objection and supported yourself with anecdotal evidence.
Temporary horizontal transitions and short horizontal promotion in young post-communist economies do not change the fact that the ruling class of this world is very limited and completely undemocratic.
And after 250 years of Satan's rule we're after an industrial, medical and technological revolution,
also Black Death had a similar effect, increasing income of those who lived through it.
But you know, a system that relies on pestilence to increase the standards of living of those who survive is not really preferable to what we have today
No. There is a thousand years' difference between the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death. Moreover, the Black Death was a consequence of economic opening to new markets.
Medieval economic development was a consequence of the accumulation of experience and a new, post-ancient farming culture. Even in the Dark Ages, the quality of life, its length and the birth rate increased very rapidly. Thanks to Christianity, which was a transmission belt to the prebarbaric Roman culture, and then allowed for further adaptations
And don't forget that the industrial revolution caused pollution and pauperization on a scale never seen before. Just because you don't see it in Europe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The mass migration of recent years is precisely caused by the disintegration of old social relations by global capitalism.
Pollution - sure. Pauperization - at first to some degree but later the industrializarion caused massive increase in wealth. Not only of the capitalists - trade unions and the threat of socialism slowly forced the factory owners to ameliorate working conditions and increase earnings.
So you admit that the pauperization of workers was a consequence of industrialization and the destruction of rural economic culture?
Much lower infant mortality alone increases the average life expectancy much more than 10 years.
You are trying to change the topic from life expectancy to infant mortality.
But you know what? Between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, infant mortality rates increased dramatically. You know why? Because it was increasingly done by doctors instead of traditional midwives (doctors considered washing hands a superstition). This is the power of progress.
In Bismark's Germany when retirement system was introduced life expectancy of a worker was below 50 years (they started counting it in order to properly set the retirement age). Now its 81 years.
The short lifespan was a consequence of living conditions during industrialization.
Do you think European workers would live much longer now? The problem was simply transferred to Bangladesh.
How about not being disfigured and handicapped by polio or killed by pox?
You're avoiding the question again. You said that we live healthier. Microplastics and health consequences make me doubt it.
Dozens of new diseases have appeared in addition to traditional diseases, and this process will not end.
That's why I mentioned travelling, not setting bombs.
And I mentioned going to jail for using incorrect pronouns.
Moreover, you forget that the same system of oppression allows violence caused by immigrants.
Where's my freedom?
And you still didn't leave your village, often because you were not allowed to. In large areas of Europe serfs were legally bound to the land, much like the slaves in American plantations.
You don't know history. This assignment to the land is your part of Europe, and after the Renaissance.
But even then, the comparison to the American system of slavery is ridiculous, because American slaves lived differently than peasants in Europe, without all the traditional social structure and internal economic relations.
You can only call our (1st world) standard of living 'hell' if you don't know how hard our ancestors had it.
You don't know history and you have no comparison.
You know, someone living in the Third Reich might say "but the level of education and medicine is much higher than it was a hundred years ago!"
