I’ve looked at tons of old photos and think people today look younger mainly because of better diet, less pollution, and improved sanitation. Back then, many people, even aristocrats, looked older and some were not thin. Kids in the 1800s were often quite young, and sailors in 1917 seemed healthier than some troops today. It’s a mix of factors, but diet and environment really matter.
I have viewed maybe 200,000 historical photos from the 1800's to today, across all kinds of archives. The neoteny effect is very real and began probably around the 1920s for some people.
Interestingly historical men resemble modern men more (vs women) in a lot of ways.
too many observations to ever state but one funny one is that the zoomer perm was alive and well in the 1930s
1933, us national archive:
I suspect we look younger today largely because of diet (in the best case, much better), pollution (again in the best case much better! Less lead, arsenic, etc), and disease load (massive gains in sanitation, mostly).
I think manual labor and sunlight are less likely changes.
I believe labor and sunlight are less likely because many late 1800s photos are of more aristocratic families, and they still often look quite aged. (And since Roman times its been observed that peasant families often looked less sickly or more healthy, for many reasons.)
I found that *many* people in the late 1800s/early 1900s were not thin. *Lots* of people had poor diets and were portly by today's (ideal) standards.
eg famous actresses from the 1880s, E. J. Bellocq from 1912. Common male and fem body type at the time!
@NickFreiling
@simonsarris What about weight? Most people in "old times" were thin, which makes anyone look older.
Maybe pollution (coal) more than smoking. It's definitely apparent before childbirth (and median age at first child was still maybe 21-23).
Look at these young girls and boys in 1860. They're probably about 13-16.
@luccasiau
@simonsarris Physically I assume it's just better skin care + lack of smoking. Mentally, my guess is that people previously had kids and married younger (for other reasons), and those two 'aged' and matured them
lunch is over, maybe share hundreds photos later, however not great example but compare:
Sailors in the British navy (1917 off Smyrna) - picked partly bc excellent physique and nutrition & well fed. Vs troops assigned to territorial defense. Note heights, eyes. One more "modern"
I have viewed maybe 200,000 historical photos from the 1800's to today, across all kinds of archives. The neoteny effect is very real and began probably around the 1920s for some people.
Interestingly historical men resemble modern men more (vs women) in a lot of ways.too many observations to ever state but one funny one is that the zoomer perm was alive and well in the 1930s
1933, us national archive:I suspect we look younger today largely because of diet (in the best case, much better), pollution (again in the best case much better! Less lead, arsenic, etc), and disease load (massive gains in sanitation, mostly).
I think manual labor and sunlight are less likely changes.I believe labor and sunlight are less likely because many late 1800s photos are of more aristocratic families, and they still often look quite aged. (And since Roman times its been observed that peasant families often looked less sickly or more healthy, for many reasons.)I found that *many* people in the late 1800s/early 1900s were not thin. *Lots* of people had poor diets and were portly by today's (ideal) standards.
eg famous actresses from the 1880s, E. J. Bellocq from 1912. Common male and fem body type at the time!Maybe pollution (coal) more than smoking. It's definitely apparent before childbirth (and median age at first child was still maybe 21-23).
Look at these young girls and boys in 1860. They're probably about 13-16.lunch is over, maybe share hundreds photos later, however not great example but compare:
Sailors in the British navy (1917 off Smyrna) - picked partly bc excellent physique and nutrition & well fed. Vs troops assigned to territorial defense. Note heights, eyes. One more "modern"
yes
I have viewed maybe 200,000 historical photos from the 1800's to today, across all kinds of archives. The neoteny effect is very real and began probably around the 1920s for some people.
Interestingly historical men resemble modern men more (vs women) in a lot of ways. ... too many observations to ever state but one funny one is that the zoomer perm was alive and well in the 1930s
1933, us national archive: ... I suspect we look younger today largely because of diet (in the best case, much better), pollution (again in the best case much better! Less lead, arsenic, etc), and disease load (massive gains in sanitation, mostly).
I think manual labor and sunlight are less likely changes. ... I believe labor and sunlight are less likely because many late 1800s photos are of more aristocratic families, and they still often look quite aged. (And since Roman times its been observed that peasant families often looked less sickly or more healthy, for many reasons.) ... I found that *many* people in the late 1800s/early 1900s were not thin. *Lots* of people had poor diets and were portly by today's (ideal) standards.
eg famous actresses from the 1880s, E. J. Bellocq from 1912. Common male and fem body type at the time! ... Maybe pollution (coal) more than smoking. It's definitely apparent before childbirth (and median age at first child was still maybe 21-23).
Look at these young girls and boys in 1860. They're probably about 13-16. ... lunch is over, maybe share hundreds photos later, however not great example but compare:
Sailors in the British navy (1917 off Smyrna) - picked partly bc excellent physique and nutrition & well fed. Vs troops assigned to territorial defense. Note heights, eyes. One more "modern"
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
Update
More Threads by @simonsarris
The thread says lower birthrates are due to life's increasing complexity and comfort. People face too many choices and l...
