How common was it for parents to lose a child? • Hacker News Board

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#21

Post by pjc50 » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

lolc wrote: post #20

muro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people died, a lot As always, as many people die, as are born :). We got better at hiding the fact - by letting people die in hospitals, in homes for elderly (western world) just so it's out of sight and we are less reminded of death. On average, people live longer, yet it's not that they die "less".

One can only lose two parents, but one can lose a lot of children! If we have a stable population, then a higher child mortality means a higher absolute death rate. If the population is growing, the situation is even more pronounced!

Indeed. The 20th century saw a lot of populations adopt anti-mortality programs before contraception. The population quadrupled in a century. Far more people were born than died!

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#22

Post by lordnacho » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:13 PM UTC

I often think about whether or emotions towards our children are affected by our evolutionary past, specifically that since your kids had high mortality, you were smart to not get too close. Interestingly Darwin himself is the case study. I happen to have visited his home and I discovered he lost several kids. But it hurt him as much as you'd imagine, according to his diaries.

You also have to wonder if we have a coping mechanism, for the same reason.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#23

Post by lostlogin » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

Finnucane wrote: post #17

droithomme wrote: post #7

From genealogy it appears to me that before the dawn of antibiotics and vaccines all parents had at least some children die of childhood diseases. The only exceptions I find are cases such as where the woman has two children then dies herself in childbirth or shortly thereafter from complications, and both children eventually grow up. Having no dead children a century ago and beyond seems to have been a very rare exp…

The converse is also true: when divorce became easier and more common, there was much hand-wringing over one-parent families, but in the past, one-parent families were just as common. The difference was that it was usually one of the parents had died. Around here in the Boston area, every town has a colonial-era cemetery, and they are all have a lot of graves of children.

Its interesting to walk in them and read the headstones. The older headstones where I live are for very young children, then there seems to be a gap then it’s young men and women. The males seem to have died in workplace accidents and the women in childbirth.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#24

Post by rpmisms » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:22 PM UTC

amasad wrote: post #9

massysett wrote: post #6

The decline in child mortality explains why anti-vaxxers are getting footing. They’ve never had to watch a child die from something that was readily preventable with cheap, nearly risk-free medicine.

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-morta…

Why is CDC research being downvoted?

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#25

Post by Finnucane » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #23

Finnucane wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The converse is also true: when divorce became easier and more common, there was much hand-wringing over one-parent families, but in the past, one-parent families were just as common. The difference was that it was usually one of the parents had died. Around here in the Boston area, every town has a colonial-era cemetery, and they are all have a lot of graves of children.

Its interesting to walk in them and read the headstones. The older headstones where I live are for very young children, then there seems to be a gap then it’s young men and women. The males seem to have died in workplace accidents and the women in childbirth.

At the beginning of the 20th century, before antibiotics and safety rules, the top killers were pneumonia, tuberculosis, childbirth, and farm accidents. Yes, work was dangerous.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#26

Post by agumonkey » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:35 PM UTC

marktangotango wrote: post #2

This is something that struck me when reading Dickens; people died, a lot. One thing it highlights to me is the importance of modern medicine and antibiotics. Another thing is how different the human experience is now for most of the world; children and death are much less common (for most) than previous centuries. Sure this is common knowledge, but taken for granted I believe.

Pardon the seemingly naive idea. How much life is worse when you're shielded from harsh.

I wonder if people weren't more mentally stronger due to the fact that they knew how fragile and dangerous things were. You have to overcome fear and sublimate your existence.

Nowadays I (maybe many others) feel like always wondering if I should dive in the pool.

And the recent VR era is not helping, someone on IRC was complaining that he couldn't be in VR 24/7 so he could just live in it try anything without ever fearing death.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#27

Post by smoll » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

amasad wrote: post #9

massysett wrote: post #6

The decline in child mortality explains why anti-vaxxers are getting footing. They’ve never had to watch a child die from something that was readily preventable with cheap, nearly risk-free medicine.

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-morta…

> The reduction in vaccine-preventable diseases (e.g., diphtheria, tetanus, measles, poliomyelitis, and Haemophilus influenzae type b meningitis) has reduced infant morbidity and has had a modest effect on infant mortality

It says infant mortality, which I assume is 0-1 years of age. What about the effect on child mortality altogether?

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#28

Post by bt848 » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

We don’t really understand the human condition of the past, even when it is within living memory. A related aspect of life that has been practically eradicated is teenage motherhood. 18-19 years at birth of first child was the most common age for Americans in the middle of the 20th century. 40-year-old grandparents were common. That was just 60 years past, but we view everything differently today.

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#29

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #24

amasad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-morta…

Why is CDC research being downvoted?

[deleted]

Re: How common was it for parents to lose a child?

#30

Post by EliRivers » Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #24

amasad wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if vaccines are relevant here because -- as per the CDC data, and contrary to popular belief -- child mortality rates were on a downward trend well before the introduction of vaccines in the mid 1960s. The CDC claim it's had a "modest" effect: Infant mortality: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm Edit: children mortality follows similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-morta…

Why is CDC research being downvoted?

If I had to guess, because it's about infant mortality but the poster presented it in support of an assertion about child mortality; which of course, it says very little about.