bombus wrote:
What I do think people have every right to complain about is dodgy eyesight. Touch wood I've been lucky, but children should not routinely be short/long-sighted any more than they've routinely got poor hearing IMHO. People should be able to expect to see without correction until their 50s. Eyes are poorly-functioning and unreliable compared to the rest of the body. I realise that our full-colour, incredibly detailed eyesight is a wonderful, amazing and complicated thing, but if humans were manufactured artificially, I'd consider sight to be the most unreliable "module". It must have been a real PITA for our ancestors (although at least they didn't live long or need to read much).
Agreed. I was always very proud of my eyesight, which used to be perfect - but now, like Big Tone, my arms are too short to read without specs. I can still spot a fox in a covert three fields away, but I can't read the label on a tin in the local shop. But what the hell!
As a matter of fact, many of or ancestors
did live long (as a visit to the graveyard in my village church will confirm). It's just that life expectancy
at birth (which is the figure statisticians use) was low because so many died in childhood. If you got past that, you had every chance of reaching 70 or 80 or even 90 - although it might very likely have been less in large towns and cities owing to overcrowding, insanitary conditions and poor diet. Us yokels had an advantage there! The problem today is that life is too often artificially prolonged.
Incidentally, how accurate were your guesses as to the ages of the "usual suspects" on this site?