Well, certain people. . .
I came across something a while back that showed the life spans of the US presidents. What was significant about it was that the median and mean life spans for the presidents born in each century was significantly higher that that of the general population (typically mid- to upper-70s)–although the common folk have closed the gap quite a bit since then.
So, I thought I’d see if it worked the same way with the Popes, since there’s a longer history of them to work with. Sure enough, the Popes all had *longer life spans as far back as I went (I think starting with the 1600s).
So. . .
Why have these sets of head honchos thru history had a leg up on us common folk?
*Pretty similar numbers to the presidents’ averages, but I don’t have that info in front of me anymore, and it’s easy enough to verify if there’s any disbelief.
[ul][li]Better nutrition[/li][li]Less hard labor & the perils associated therewith[/li][li]Less violent crime at their level of society[/ul][/li]100% WAGs all, but I’d put real money on the first two.
Another reason – U.S. presidents must be at least 35 years old, and in fact have been at least 42 years old. The average life span of a population includes all those who die at any age. By focusing on a group that already made it to 42 or older, of course you will eliminate all the infant mortality that drags that average life span down. If you compared the life spans of presidents to the general population of men who have made it to 42 years of age, you will find much less of a gap.
Likewise with popes, although even more so. Virtually all popes elected in the last 400 years have been over 50 years of age. Compare their life spans with other men who have reached 50, and you will see even less of a gap than you saw with U.S. presidents.
Infant mortality. The average lifespan was much shorter because a lot of people died young. If you got to be 20, though, you had a good chance of making it to the 60s or 70s.