I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't believe this was written 100 years ago.

Old age was not at 35 in 1901 and a healthy person could easily live to be 70. Ten miles was not a great distance to walk. These claims ring of the misinformed cultural chivalry of the 1980s.

The earliest reference on the internet refers to only part of this article and this image arrived on the internet some time around 1990. All images are the same copy. And Adam Boklage at http://www.lhj.com/style/covers/predictions-for-the-year-2000/ has more information:

Has anyone at LHJ actually pulled a copy of the Dec. 1900 issue from the archives to verify that this article really exists? I think that it is a hoax It was first created in 2007. See http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-11-29-n35.html for the earliest version. You will notice that EVERY single copy of the article that you can find online has the same errant marks on the page. (The squiggle above “Oranges will Grow in Philadelphia; the semi-circular mark in the last sentence, under “Few Drugs will be Swallowed”.) This means that every image has been made from the same original source copy. No one has independently obtained a copy of the Dec. 1900 LHJ to verify the existence of this article. Additionally, if you look at actual copies of LHJ from 1900 and 1901 (search on ebay, and look at the screen shots that are posted there), you will notice that LHJ never printed “Ladies’ Home Journal” or the page number in the top banner on pages on which articles began. They only did this on subsequent pages of articles. On pages on which articles began, they printed the page numbers at the bottom, in the footer of the page. I can also find no article title that was not centered on the page. Stylistically, they did not offset article titles the way this one is done. Finally, the use of the dieresis (the umlaut looking double dot) above the ‘e’ in “Aërial” is historically inaccurate. While it looks quite antiquated — much like seeing the old spelling of coöperate or coördinate — it is bogus, like Häagen-Dazs or Mötley Crüe. In true historical usage, the dieresis was used to note the distinct pronunciation of the second vowel in a series, rather than as a diphthong, or to note that an otherwise silent ‘e’ was to be actually pronounced, such as in Emily Brontë. The ‘ae’ in aerial is, and always has been a diphthong. In fact it was originally written as ‘æ’. So, while ‘ærial’ might possibly been seen in 1900, ‘aërial’ would never have been use. I wonder if you weren't seriously pünked!

EDIT:

strong proof has been posted that the article was not a hoax