Serious question. For example, the average life expectancy of people in Nepal in 1955 was 28 years. After DDT was used to eradicate the mosquito population there, life expectancy rose to 55 years. Once DDT was banned globally, life expectancy in Nepal fell to 48 years. Nepal was never colonized, so it had to wait until post-colonialism to receive many of the benefits of modern technology.
But compare former colonies to the uncolonized, like the Sentinelese people.
> what was the average increase in life expectancy and literacy in places before colonization?
> what was the average during?
> what did it fall to after colonialism ended?
Without the intervention of the West, none of these places had more opportunity in life than to mate, reproduce, then die. Why is that a bad thing?
who dat
>>66021303
this is real high test
notice the existence of muscle definition to go with the thickness
>>66021372
pernille penelopee
>>66021303
I AM CUM
>>66021405
She's a power-lifter. All female power lifters wind up looking like this.
>>66021303
Bitch be squatting twice her own body weight
>>66021303
Same could be said about slavery of niggers in he us.
That booty cannot be real, OP.
Post more evidence to support that ass.
>>66021303
Not an argument.
Why the fuck did you post a picture of that? Now nobody is going to listen to what you said.
Life expectancy was never 28. Average age at death was perhaps at times 28, but thats different from 'expected'. The age of death isnt distributed evenly. For almost all of human history, modal age of death has been around 74, even for cave men.
>>66021493
Name?
christ....
https://www.instagram.com/pernilwyn/
>>66021303
Is it just me or does her but go down too far?
>>66021745
>Why the fuck did you post a picture of that? Now nobody is going to listen to what you said.
See >>66021791
You were saying? There are so many shills on this board, the signal-to-noise ratio is just too high to have a serious discussion without a gimmick. You gotta use sex to sell the thread.
>>66021791
>For almost all of human history, modal age of death has been around 74, even for cave men.
And yet, even if you try to ignore changes in the average, there was still a change in the average. Meaning more people lived and productivity increased, people had a decent chance to modernize.
>muh modal caveman
Is a really intellectually dishonest bit of stretching to find and exception and dodge the significance of average age changing
>>66021804
Mia sand
WE
>>66021878
oh my god
>>66022234
No you are right. Changes in average mean something, but it doesnt mean anything to life expectancy. Infant mortality has been eliminated, which has drastically increased the average life span. That means something totally different. For all of human history, the people who were alive at adulthood could have reasonably expected to live to their 70s.
>>66022707
>For all of human history, the people who were alive at adulthood could have reasonably expected to live to their 70s.
thats a profoundly dubious assertion.
>>66022497
>>66021303
While many places benefited from being colonized, others are also worse off. India would be a good example. It held a large share of the worlds GDP before the british showed up and was dirty fucking poor by the time the british left.
>>66021303
guys
guys
look at
listen
look at the pixels
the pixels
guys
look at them
>>66022497
I'd annex that if you get what I mean.
HIGH TEST!
I'm the guy with the high test wife. I approve of this thread.
To your point, my guess is hundreds of millions. Africa, South and Central America, every continent and region has peoples who now live under self-determination (largely) and have the rule of law (more or less) which is much better than the state of serfdom they used to exist under.
>>66023007
Do some research nigger. The change in infant mortality completely explains the change in average life. Modern society has contributed about 10 years to life expectancy, not 50.
It wouldnt even make biological sense that people died at 28. If only like 1 in four kids actually reach adulthood, and it takes a reproductive rate of 2 to sustain a population, then that means each mother has to attempt pregnancy 8 times. Thats going to take 6 years, if she is just getting pregnant at every possible opportunity (which isnt reasonable). If she reaches puberty at 13, and she has two kids by time she is 19, she has 9 years of parenting. Her kids will probably be orphans at age 11.
That doesnt make sense considering that humans are large investment, very complicated organisms that only reach full development shortly before perishing. It doesnt make sense, considering our reproductive strategy isnt 'fuck like rabbits', but rather fuck strategically with good partners during good economic circumstances suitable for child raising.
>>66024130
>Do some research nigger.
Explain how "for all of human history people have lived to age 70" is a factual claim, how the agrarian revolution didn't change maximum life expectancy, how the industrial revolution didn't impact infant mortality rates, epidemiological factors, disease attrition, starvation, etc., and then you can call me nigger.
>The change in infant mortality completely explains the change in average life. Modern society has contributed about 10 years to life expectancy, not 50.
A whole lot more than just infant mortality goes into that change, and the example of Nepal was not meant to be taken as universally applicable, you astounding genius. SO what's your ultimate argument in light of my question on colonialism?
Was it a net positive, did it increase quality of life and life expectancy, or not? Muh 70 years without any modern adaptations of any sort, basically, that paleolithic man lived to 70 -- straight to the trash without a lot fo evidence and explanation. Just asserting it is useless to anyones understand of your argument.
>>66021303
That's a ridiculously nice ass she has there. WOULD KISS A++++++++++++++++
>>66021303
>>66021493
Too much legs.
>>66025936
too little test
>>66024025
thats just fat not high test
