Tolwyn

Still, the idea that "We've advanced science to live longer now, we can obviously continue to do that at the same rate forever" isn't really very good logic -- I mean, can you find *anything* that that sort of thinking has *ever* applied to?
 
Originally posted by Bob McDob
No One Lives Forever. You Only Live Twice.
(sorry, couldn't resist...)
Click to expand...

So, Bob, are you really Bjork or Nancy Sinatra? :D
 
Originally posted by AzraeL
A large part of the increased life expectency is due to improved diet, hygiene, health care etc. which affects us all through our lives. In other words, we are 'getting older' later. It's not just about keeping us alive when we get old.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree.

Incidentally, let's take an example. With better protection from the sun nowadays, the skin ages at a lower rate, wrinkles appear later in our life than they did before...
From this point of view, we do age "later"...

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Still, the idea that "We've advanced science to live longer now, we can obviously continue to do that at the same rate forever" isn't really very good logic -- I mean, can you find *anything* that that sort of thinking has *ever* applied to?
Click to expand...
Well I see your point LOAF, but as it is, the rates I have mentioned are actually increasing themselves!
What I mean is, the life expectancy did not increase as much in 1900... not only is the life expectancy increasing, the rate at which it increases is also increasing...

Obviously, it's kind of hard to project this into the future, but put yourselves in the shoes of ancient Romans...
In that era, the life expectancy was as low as around 25-30 years...
Well do you they would have believed you if you told them that in less than 1500 years man would live twice as long as they do now?

[Edited by mpanty on 06-13-2001 at 13:15]
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
Originally posted by Mekt-Hakkikt
...when he tells Blair, when he is transferred to Special Operations, to follow Paladin's orders better than his.
Click to expand...
I took that to be as Tolwyn saying it as a joke.
Click to expand...

Yes, it could be a joke, too. But when I played it the first time after WC2, I found it more fitting to have him still hold a grudge.
 
What? Roman life expectancy wasn't 25-30! It was at least 50. Pilgrim life expectancy was about 35-40.

No, we won't live twice as long as we do now...there's a limit to how long our cells can regenerate, and there's also a limit to how long our bodies are designed to last. We could modify this by genetics, but unless we transfer our brains to something that's non-biological, we won't live forever. Even then, we won't live forever...our brains will die eventually.

Perhaps, some day in the future, we could transfer our thought patterns to something else...but then you'd have people not for it, and people campaigning against it...and it wouldn't be cheap. Humans aren't designed to live more than roughly 100, give or take 10.

That's why I laugh at a lot of science fiction that has a person who is 130 but who looks, acts and functions like someone who's 50.
 
Nep Parth, it's the 2nd time you're so categoric when expressing your opinion... life is not so absolute as you think, and unless you have a gift in foreseeing, you can't tell us that there is no way (beyond genetics) to increase the life expectancy...

As I said before, predicting the life expectancy in the Wing Commander era is almost impossible, notice I said "picturing" and "era"... by this I mean picturing human society in more than 600 years!!
Who know what advances mankind woul have made by then...

Mind you, already now there are ways to decrease the ageing rate of cells, ways that however are not very efficient, and not 100% scientifically proven, but progress is being made...
As LOAF pointed out, if indeed we could allow for constant organ replacement, by finding some way to make copies (clone) our own organs, I can't imagine the boost the expectancy rates...

This is just hypothetical of course, I am no dreamer that wants to live forever (except maybe for my curiousity to see what life will really be in 2600 :) ), once I would have lived my life, and my time has come, I will accept it.
Yet, do not shut down possibilities that are still left open just because you think it's impossible.

And as for the Roman life expectancy:

http://www.grg.org/resources/extro/tsld022.htm
http://www.finchcms.edu/neuro/apcourse/apr7/tsld002.htm

If you really knew the definition of "life exectancy", you wouldn't storm to contradict me. Life expectancy is an "average", it doesn't mean that all Romans died at age 30... in some older text books there are even mentions about 60-70 year old serving soldiers dying in battle...
A life expectancy of 30 just means that in average, due to the uncured diseases, famines, wars of the time, the general Roman citizen was not expected to live more than 30 years...

So before you say something, think twice...
 
Oh, really? When was the first time I was being really categorical?

Note that the Roman's didn't have much of an Empire until Caesar. Also note that the Roman civilization lasted hundreds of years. Expectancy improved throughout those times...also note how the rates are different for different parts of the Empire.

Maybe I'm in a rush to contraindict you because, well, you're ignoring what we're saying. How many people, with the replacement of salts and hormones, live past 100? It's still a hard age to get to. And considering that your cited source mentions that the expectancy will increase with age once GENETIC ENGINEERING goes into "full swing". And, I'd look a little oddly at an article about aging by a neurosurgeon who isn't talking about human life span. Try again.

Organ replacement doesn't cover the brain. Look how healthy brain dead people are. Our brains kind of wear out at old age...one of the articles you cited discussed aging on the brain.

Life expectancy isn't a average. Average life expectancy is an average. Maybe if you cited it in it's entirety, you wouldn't be so absoludicrous when you speak.

Practice what you preach, mpanty.
 
Originally posted by Supdon3
See thats whats missleading about these age issues where people only lived till 40 and died. Lots of people lived longer but they count deaths of children and losses of pregnancy and medical things for everyone when they do the averages. Usually if they lived to 40, even hundreds of years ago, they lived longer barring the plague. A 40 year old then would look like a 40 year old now.
Click to expand...

Maybe not. Perhaps cosmetic sciences (if that even IS a science) has gotten a bit more advanced. I don't really mean plastic surgery and such, but perhaps they have some sort of advanced anti-wrinkle cream and such. Maybe some alien foods rejuvenate cells in the skin, there's all sorts of stuff that could happen.

Not that it does, but it could.
 
Tolwyn was 21 in Action Stations, *not* 26 -- remember that he talks about how he'd like to live through his five year tour and end up being 26...
 
Originally posted by Nep Parth
Note that the Romans didn't have much of an Empire until Caesar. Also note that the Roman civilization lasted hundreds of years. Expectancy improved throughout those times... also note how the rates are different for different parts of the Empire.
Click to expand...
Well of course the rates are different for each part of the empire...
You think that the rates we have now for the global population are the same for each single country in the world? This is also an average of course! This is just nitpicking for nothing...

Maybe I'm in a rush to contradict you because, well, you're ignoring what we're saying. How many people, with the replacement of salts and hormones, live past 100? It's still a hard age to get to. And considering that your cited source mentions that the expectancy will increase with age once GENETIC ENGINEERING goes into "full swing".
Click to expand...
Well, what's stopping it?
In genetic engineering, there has been more progress in the last 5-10 years, than in the previous 90!! Scientists have "just" (a year ago) finished mapping the entire human genome...
The next giant breakthrough might happen sooner as we think...
And AGAIN, we are talking about a projection 600 years from now, Nep! Six-hundred!! God only knows what progress mankind would have made, apart from inventing Bengal Strike Carriers or Stealth Space Fighters...

Organ replacement doesn't cover the brain. Look how healthy brain dead people are. Our brains kind of wear out at old age...one of the articles you cited discussed aging on the brain.
Click to expand...
Granted, as it is right now, the brain ages whatever happens.
But again, and I must insist on this fact, we have 600 years ahead of us! The reason I yelled at you (and perhaps this time *I* was too arrogant, and I apologize :) ) is that you totally exclude the possibility that (avg) life expectancy could skyrocket. Six-hundred years, Nep!!! That's a hell of a long period! Give science some time...

Life expectancy isn't a average. Average life expectancy is an average. Maybe if you cited it in its entirety, you wouldn't be so absoludicrous when you speak.
Click to expand...
Fine, I wasn't clear enough on this then. I did mean "average" life expectancy, I was not talking about "records" of ageing, just an average trend, which I think would be more representative of the population than "lone cases"... :)

[Edited by mpanty on 06-13-2001 at 19:38]
 
Originally posted by Nep Parth
Life expectancy isn't a average. Average life expectancy is an average. Maybe if you cited it in it's entirety, you wouldn't be so absoludicrous when you speak.
Click to expand...
That's ridiculous... there's no such thing as a non-average life expectancy. Well, there is, but it's utterly useless in this case. What possible use could you have for an individual's life expectancy? If somebody, aged 40, has cancer/heart disease/whatever, he may have a life expectancy of 45 years... but what the heck would that prove about the society he lives in? That's why, generally, people say 'life expectancy', but mean 'average life expectancy'.

And I don't know about you, but I can't find 'absoludicrous' in my dictionary :).
 
Oh yeah, back to the ages thing I had another question. Is Paladin older than Tolywn? I mean, Tolywn had just graduated the academy at the start of the war, and Paladin was already stationed on the Iason. So if Tolywn was 60 circa WC4, was Paladin in his late sixties? And now in the WCP time, what's he like 80?
 
Originally posted by Ladiesman^
...and Paladin was already stationed on the Iason.
Click to expand...
Iason? Good thing he wasn't on it when they met the Kats. Too, he was ready to 'retire' in WC1.
 
Originally posted by Wedge009
Originally posted by Ladiesman^
...and Paladin was already stationed on the Iason.
Click to expand...
Iason? Good thing he wasn't on it when they met the Kats. Too, he was ready to 'retire' in WC1.
Click to expand...

According to the WCM Handbook and the novelization, along with Pilgrim Stars methinks, it says Paladin was on the Iason.
 
Yeah, Paladin happened to be in one of the two fighters onboard the Iosan when it was wasted by the cats. It was then easy for them to capture him cause i IIRC the fighter was equipped mainly for scouting.
 
Eh? You'll need to explain the whole story to me, 'cause I can't see how Paladin could escape and still seem like a non-hyperaggressive soldier like Cobra or Hawk.
 
Paladin was in a ferret scanning the Kilrathi ship when it destroyed the Iosan. His fighter was hit by debris and he blacked out. His disabled fighter was brought aboard the ship. He was interrogated and tortured. Eventually he was taken into a shuttle (2641) where he managed to kill the Kilrathi onboard and escape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top