Re:Is there any truth in truth serums? (2015)
by beagle3 on Thursday January 23, 2020 @08:36AM
(#22127391)
> and why would it be that low if there wasn’t a lot of people who wanted that?
Not to detract from your other points, which I agree with, but ... according to e.g. [0], and I've found similar data in other places, life expectancy for a girl in the victorian era was ~40. So you can't judge the number 12 by today's standards.
[0] https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-life-expectancy-like-duri...
Re:Is there any truth in truth serums? (2015)
by throwawayhhakdl on Thursday January 23, 2020 @08:45AM
(#22127452)
Life expectancy includes infant and child mortality and thus is commonly misunderstood. Given that you’re already alive and healthy at age 12, your personal life expectancy is going to be higher than the population mean.
Re:Is there any truth in truth serums? (2015)
by buckminster on Thursday January 23, 2020 @10:55AM
(#22128511)
Yes, the post-childhood life expectancy in Victorian England was 73. For all the money spent on medicine and public health we've barely moved it.
One reason is that I’ve been told the age of consent in many places was 12 as recently as the Victorian era [0], and why would it be that low if there wasn’t a lot of people who wanted that? (It might just have been politicians who wanted that, but I fear that’s merely unjustified optimism).
The other main reason is the number of women who tell me about traumatic experiences is high enough that it’s plausible all of them have been (there’s no reason for me to know about everyone’s history, so of course I believe I know someone who hasn’t told me and never will).
Of course, this percentage does mean that the “think of the children” meme ought to put all children under 24-7 surveillance so that nobody can ever touch them. Side effects haven’t slowed that meme down before, why would it now?
[0] I never cared to check, so I don’t know how many or when any given jurisdiction changed