Live data from Hacker News

How common was it for parents to lose a child?

ourworldindata.org

31–40 of 84 posts

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

#31
post #14

I have said for a long time that having a child die is one of the most human experiences (more flagrantly "welcome to being human"). We are fortunate to live in a time where it has become a rarity. Nice to see someone try to put numbers on it.

why do you consider it one if the most human experience?

I think about it this way: until about 3 or 4 generations ago, every single one of my ancestors running back to the time before they were 'human' experienced the loss of a child.

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

#32
post #16

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.

> 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".

A hundred years ago, 98% of all people were dead. Today it's only 93%. With some effort, we should be able to reduce that further.

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

#33
post #8

One thing that shocked me was finding out J.S. Bach had 20 children, out of two marriages. Of these, 4 died during birth, and 6 died within the first five years. I can't even imagine what losing ten kids would be like, even if you have ten more.

Not to make light of his loss, but even with ten kids, I marvel at his ability to crank out as much music as he did! I can't imagine any peace and quiet at home for concentration.

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

#34

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.

I remember being struck by the fact that most people had teeth go bad and basically rot in place. If you lived near someone with skills they'd grab it with tongs and rip it out, no anesthesia. And this was probably an almost universal experience (for those that lived long enough)

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

#35
post #8

One thing that shocked me was finding out J.S. Bach had 20 children, out of two marriages. Of these, 4 died during birth, and 6 died within the first five years. I can't even imagine what losing ten kids would be like, even if you have ten more.

Then as now, being a musician meant more opportunities to breed.

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

#36
post #16

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.

> 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".

> On average, people live longer, yet it's not that they die "less".

Yes, they do. Previous generations had more children. The higher birth rate did not yield a higher population growth rate, in part because the death rate was also higher. If we had death rates approaching the past, without a similar increase in birth rate, we would be in steep population decline, not the low population growth or slight population decline that most developed countries find themselves in today.

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

#38
post #34

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.

I remember being struck by the fact that most people had teeth go bad and basically rot in place. If you lived near someone with skills they'd grab it with tongs and rip it out, no anesthesia. And this was probably an almost universal experience (for those that lived long enough)

There are some YouTube videos and mini-documentaries of Indian street dentists who have been working for generations. It’s probably as close as we can get to viewing the 1800s or earlier practices.

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

#39
post #27
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…

> 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?

Infant mortality is probably the biggest factor in "under 5 years old" mortality rate. However, even if you look at children mortality overall, it follows a similar trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality?tab=chart...

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

#40
post #38
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember being struck by the fact that most people had teeth go bad and basically rot in place. If you lived near someone with skills they'd grab it with tongs and rip it out, no anesthesia. And this was probably an almost universal experience (for those that lived long enough)

There are some YouTube videos and mini-documentaries of Indian street dentists who have been working for generations. It’s probably as close as we can get to viewing the 1800s or earlier practices.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN