>"Millenia" ago we lived in huts and had a life expectancy under 30.
I can't stand this particular misunderstanding of life expectancy. Pre-industrial societies weren't "Logan's Run", it's just that infant mortality drags the average down. If you substitute "life expectancy at birth" (the usual meaning) with "life expectancy at 5 years of age" (meaning people who survived infancy and toddler years), life expectancy looks pretty similar to the present.
And I can't stand this argument. First, it is false: even life expectancy at 5 years of age was way worse than it is today, from 47 at age 10 in ancient Greece/Rome, to 64 at age 21 in English nobility in the Late Medieval, to give a few examples. Today it's over 80 for your average citizen of the developed world. Second, why on earth should we discount infant mortality? High infant mortality has a terrible impact on societies. It's completely arbitrary to disregard.
I can't stand this particular misunderstanding of life expectancy. Pre-industrial societies weren't "Logan's Run", it's just that infant mortality drags the average down. If you substitute "life expectancy at birth" (the usual meaning) with "life expectancy at 5 years of age" (meaning people who survived infancy and toddler years), life expectancy looks pretty similar to the present.