I've seen another "life expectancy (at birth) used to be so low, so we dramatically improved everything" argument. First: Yes, life expectancy by all means is going up, but not the way you might think.
The best, unbutchered source is here: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy-how-is-it-calculated-and-how-should-it-be-interpreted
If you want my tl;dr: [Life expectancy at birth](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?time=1950..latest) vs [life expectancy at 15](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-at-age-15?tab=chart&facet=none&country=CHN~BRA~SWE~ITA~GBR~OWID_WRL~OWID_EUR) shows the huge gap that infant & young adolescent mortality makes in the stats. For example in 1950 the world average (at birth) is **46.5** years, whereas for those that survive to the puberty it's **62.0** years. If my math is mathing correctly that's +33%. And since the gap is closing towards the modern age, it's not unreasonable to expect that it widened towards past times.
Even [wikipedia has notes on this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy) for English nobles who _survived_ to the age of 21 could expect to live:
- 1200–1300: to age 64
- 1300–1400: to age 45 (because of the bubonic plague)
- 1400–1500: to age 69
- 1500–1550: to age 71
And even more interesting for Classical Greece (480 - 323 BC):
> Most Greeks and Romans died young. About half of all children died before adolescence. Those who survived to the age of 30 had a reasonable chance of reaching 50 or 60. The truly elderly, however, were rare. Because so many died in childhood, life expectancy at birth was probably between 20 and 30 years.
That's +100% gap between "life expectancy at birth" and "life expectancy at the age of 30".
So please stop saying skewed things like "you would not live up to this age in (ancient times)". Yes, you would quite likely not, but mainly because you'd die before you could do anything about it.