STATISTICS AND THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF ANCIENT PEOPLES

Statistics. It's math. It's detail work. It's hard stuff for most people to conceptualize.

Which is where the issues with Life Expectancy statistics start to come in. The trouble occurs because, when studying ancient peoples – say, Rome, with a Life Expectancy of about 30 – so many people assume that that means Roman people lived to be about thirty, and then died.

However, Life Expectancy and Life Span are NOT the same thing.

Life Expectancy is a measure of the average Life Span of a particular people at a given point in time. Life Span is a measure of how many years those people in that place at that time might expect to live.

Still don't see a difference in those two things? Well, let's illustrate.

Say there is a group of ten people on an island, and all of these ten people live to be 100. The Life Expectancy and Life Span of these people is then the same – 100 years. Why? Because Life Expectancy being an average, you add up the ages of your group and divide by the number of people (100x10/10). Life Span, on the other hand, is instead an estimate of how long a person will live based on the experiences of their generation and previous generations (which, in this case, is 100). Thus, in both cases, 100.

But, what if instead one of those 10 were to only live to 90 years? Then Life Expectancy on the island would have dropped to 99 ((100x9+90)/10). But Life Span would still be 100, because 100 is still what by far most people on that island live to be, and thus 100 is still the age that people would expect to live to.

But what if, instead, one of those 10 happened to die in infancy? Life Expectancy just dropped to 90 ((100x9+0)/10). But Life Span is STILL 100. Most people still live to be 100, even though Life Expectancy has dropped by 10 years!

Those numbers are important for several reasons. Firstly, examine how much one infant death affected Life Expectancy. In fact, nine of our ten people could live only to 90, and it wouldn't change Life Expectancy as much as does having one person die in infancy.

This is one of the tricky things about statistics, particularly averaging statistics. Large discrepancies carry much greater weight upon the total than small deviations do.

Now, let's take that lesson back to the Ancient Roman times. Romans did NOT expect to die at about age 30. However, Ancient Rome had a terrible infant mortality rate, which has the effect of greatly dragging down their Life Expectancy average. But if a Roman managed to survive past childhood, they could expect a fairly long Life Span. Indeed, Romans didn't even reach their majority (full adulthood under their law) until aged 30.

So, what was the Life Span of Ancient Rome? It greatly depended on the social status of the Roman in question (that is still a large factor in Life Span today, but the discrepancy was MUCH greater in Roman times). A poor Roman who survived childhood could generally expect to live into their early fifties, in the same way that we expect to live to be 70 today.

A wealthy Roman, on the other hand, had a much longer Life Span, and many a Roman emperor lived well past their 70^th year, and there are reports of Romans living into their 80s, 90s, and even (though rarely, and far less well documented) into their centuries. Which makes sense. Modern medicine hasn't increased humanity's Life Span that much; it has instead increased the likelihood of people living a long Life Span.

In other words, there is a lot less infant mortality these days, and modern medicine (but mostly modern health practices) have made it more likely besides that a person will live a long life.

And why is this important?

Well, for accuracy's sake – no more 'historical' talk of Romans (et al) dying at 30.

But also, this is a perfect illustration of how statistics can be misleading. (Or, more importantly, how they can even be MADE to be misleading.) Statistics without context are meaningless. Statistics without proper context are cons.

Why Is War So Expensive?

The short answer is: it isn't, actually.

Or more precisely, it doesn't have to be. 

Yes, the US is spending trillions of dollars to fight two just spot wars and sponsor three raids, which is a hideously big bill for nothing even remotely approaching total war. But look at it from the other side – the Taliban aren't spending anywhere near that amount of money. They don't even HAVE that kind of money. They don't even have a thousandth of that kind of money. 

So, it is definitely possible to fight wars a lot cheaper. They're doing it right now.

Which then alters the question slightly - why are these wars so expensive for the US?

Well, the reasons are many. But first and foremost is equipment. Battleships, supply ships, jet fighters, tanks and hummers all use shocking amounts of (expensive) fuel, and these are wars fought half a world a way, meaning the expense of just getting that equipment to the battlefield, much less to then fight any battles, is astronomical. 

Then there's the equipment itself – billion dollar stealth jets, billions dollar destroyers, multi-million dollar drones, million dollar vehicles. Each of those vehicles brought into use in is a huge price tag, and with needed repairs and service people and equipment and transport for those repairs adding exponentially to the cost of each one in the field.

But added to all that is the cost of firing the weapons on those vehicles. US main battle tanks are a little behind the curve technologically, and the gun mounted on the Abrams is smaller than the European standard and isn't heavy enough to pierce European armor. But the US isn't ready to upgrade its main battle tanks, yet, so, in order to keep up, several years ago the US started adding depleted uranium to their rounds in order to give them an extra explosive kick. The kick was meant to level the technological and power gap. But the kick turned out not to be as great as expected or promised. However, it does help, and it's what the US has, and so that is the round currently being used.

More importantly for this discussion, though, depleted uranium is expensive, and adds hugely to the cost of every round fired – tens of thousands of dollars go up in smoke each and every time a round is fired.

Only, the US isn't fighting European modern armor, and so doesn't actually need that extra kick right now. In the current battles, the US is facing mostly WWII era armor, if they face any armor at all - which is uncommon. Thus, the old caliber, uranium-less round would be equally as effective against the tanks that it is facing while costing a whole lot less.

But, why is the US in these wars with major forces of armor and humvees anyway, particularly Afghanistan? Sharp, rocky terrain with few roads, and most of those roads broken, is far from ideal vehicular terrain. That is terrain for – shocking though it might be for gung-ho, techno America – horses. (Which is why horses was what the CIA and Special Forces used during the initial raids.) Not only do horses have much more (needed) mobility in that kind of terrain, it tends to avoid that whole IED problem.

On top of that, IEDs are a kind of mine. The US uses mines. But US mines are much more expensive than an IED.The US could be using much less expensive mines.

Then there's the big price tags. Every drone that is taken out costs the US between 4 and 10 million dollars, and the US army admits that a third of their drones have crashed. (Not to mention the $26 hack that allowed the enemy to – at the very least – view the drones' video feeds.) All that cost when a much less costly armed insurgent team is far more accurate and far better diplomatically when sent on these kill/capture missions, and actually keeps the mission kill/capture instead of just kill. And all that when diplomacy and old-fashioned policework are far more effective, stabilizing, even better diplomatically, and even cheaper still than both those options, though perhaps less satisfying.

And on top of all that, then there's buildings. Every plane needs an airport. Every airport needs infrastructure. Every piece of infrastructure requires peopleand material to maintain it. The cost to run those drones is thus a lot more than their starting multi-million dollar price tag.

And then, capping it all, there are the massive palace-style embassies built in these warzones. It would be far less expensive and far more palatable diplomatically to build old style non-permanent perimeter camps outside of the cities, instead of building palatial permanent structures upon the sites of the old ruined palaces of the deposed dictators. Better image and better cost.

So, why is war so expensive? You might also ask - why use a plane when a soldier will do far better? Why use a mine when an IED would do? Why use depleted uranium when an unmodified round would do?

Because of money, pride, jobs for the boys back in the home state, money, testosterone, politics over strategy, devotion to technology, over-pricing, and money.