this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
13 points (76.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
889 readers
46 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, purely on the medical part, I'd say no. Dentistry and lowering infant mortality rate along with lowering maternity mortality rate is a very very very recent thing, although dispersal and access to these qualities aren't evenly distributed today, globally and even among class divides in the imperial core.
Anyway, I just can't imagine likely dying to childbirth in the course of having 10+ kids where 3-4 survive to adulthood if you're lucky being Better :/
!! Also no baby formula. If you have a hard time producing [enough] milk (this is a common problem!) your infant is likely to have a hard time thriving. Animal milks are NOT a substitute for human milk for an infant. Peasant women who recently had a child/still produced milk would often be the ones providing nursemaid services for higher class families. Many other points about pests (even royalty had fleas...) and hygiene also. I'm yammering a lot but obligatory: technological progress in these measures aren't necessarily brought about by specific economic models, eg not specifically capitalism in and of itself.
I agree on the medical side of things. I accept that we have a higher life expectancy than people did then. I was more interested in comparing the quality of life. This includes things like happiness, community, and so on...