Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Not necessarily the same Iason, though.
Tolwyn
- Thread starter Essex
- Start date
Surprisingly, I think you are both rigth...
Like Nep, I think that there is a limit. But I also believe that we can not forsee what will be our technological level in the 2600's. So I think nobody can state on what will be the life expectancy in 600 years.
This conversation makes me think about another problem : is there a limit to scientific progress ? Maybe there is no theoritical limit but some practical. I mean, in order to make progress in nuclear physics, we always need to build more and more powerful particule accelerators. But there shall come a time when building a new accelerator will be too expensive even for all the nations of the world together !
Another exemple more related with WC. Maybe we will discover that opening and using a wormhole is possible, but if we have to spend for that as much energy as a star produces in its entire life, we will never be able to travel this way.
So in this discussion we should add the following question : if we can theoriticaly extends the human life expectancy, is it praticaly possible ?
Rami Sihvo
Spaceman
So in this discussion we should add the following question : if we can theoriticaly extends the human life expectancy, is it praticaly possible ?[/QUOTE]
If lifespan can be raised to 100 years it means more
old people around. They retried in 70 years old and
then live 30 years doing nothing productive. In economical
sense they are burden, beacuse they can´t work and
don´t add anything to GDP. In those countries who
have public health care and pension to all old people
are already a problem with funding.
Also brain can´t remain in good condition longer than 200
years tops. Also Alzhaimer desease is growing problem.
If lifespan can be raised to 100 years it means more
old people around. They retried in 70 years old and
then live 30 years doing nothing productive. In economical
sense they are burden, beacuse they can´t work and
don´t add anything to GDP. In those countries who
have public health care and pension to all old people
are already a problem with funding.
Also brain can´t remain in good condition longer than 200
years tops. Also Alzhaimer desease is growing problem.
Populations with high infant mortality rates will statistically drag the average down. Many children dying in their first and second years (0 and 1 respectively) will move the average down. I'd say that the Romans and any ancient civilisation had extremely high infant mortality rates compared to today.
'Average' life expectacies would be biased towards this extreme. Perhaps it would be more fitting to remove the effect of infant mortality on the statistic.
'Average' life expectacies would be biased towards this extreme. Perhaps it would be more fitting to remove the effect of infant mortality on the statistic.
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
I'm pretty sure it mentions Captain Andropolous, Iason, and Paladin, so that make me assume that they talking about the same ship.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
They're completely different situations at different times. 
RATM
Spaceman
If lifespan can be raised to 100 years it means more
old people around. They retried in 70 years old and
then live 30 years doing nothing productive. In economical
sense they are burden, beacuse they can´t work and
don´t add anything to GDP. In those countries who
have public health care and pension to all old people
are already a problem with funding.
Also brain can´t remain in good condition longer than 200
years tops. Also Alzhaimer desease is growing problem. [/QUOTE]
remember, 600 years to cure it
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Scientific advancement is a constant -- but the *speed* of scientific advacement is quite obviously impossible to predict...
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
No, they're completely different situations...
science
Militarily, at the rate we're going, the future won't be anything like Wing Commander. In another thirty years, we won't even have humans flying our military jets. And, with the way our Congress is at the moment, Military won't be reaching out to space for a long, long time. One thing that might happen is that if we ever encountered a war-like species, our government would be slow to react.
Militarily, at the rate we're going, the future won't be anything like Wing Commander. In another thirty years, we won't even have humans flying our military jets. And, with the way our Congress is at the moment, Military won't be reaching out to space for a long, long time. One thing that might happen is that if we ever encountered a war-like species, our government would be slow to react.
I suggest that scientific advancement isn't necessarily
a constant .. it's only a constant if the culture values
"progress". This isn't always the case, as progress
causes change. Change means that the people on the
top of the heap go to the bottom, and thus the
people on top tend to resist it. Since they *are* on
top, they have an excellent chance of stifling
technological innovation in the bud.
Example: The UK was one of the very last Great Powers in the world to build a submarine fleet. Why? Because their surface navy was already master of the world's oceans, thank you. Building or encouraging submarine development
would not have helped their position, but might have jeopardized their sea control if the knowledge ever got out. So they turned away submarine inventors, and as a result Germany, France and the US (all of whom had a vested interest in seeing the status quo go away) got there first.
Example: In the 19th century there was a movement in England called the Luddites who made a name by smashing industrial machinery. After all, this new technology was destroying the way of life of the skilled craftsmen, replacing them with machines run by unskilled labor. 100 years later 20th century workers have resisted the use of robotics in factories, since they destroy the *industrial*
way of life.
Example: In the 1600s Europeans began to bring firearms to Japan, and for a time there were Japanese musketeers as well as Samurai. The Shogun decided that he didn't want these things in Japan, because A) He didn't need them to rule Japan, but they could be used to equip a revolt, and B) buying and selling temded to get Europeans involved in local politics, something he abhorred.
So he outlawed guns and expelled the Europeans. Because he
was draconian enough, he was able to make it stick. Japan
remained a medieval society for 200 years before advanced
Western technology forced a hasty modernization from 1853-
1903.
Thus -- progress only happens if the people on top want progress, generally because they are in competition with someone outside who will defeat them if they do not continually innovate. If there is no external threat, the powers-that-be seem to tend to quash innovation, because it threatens their position, power and wealth.
Respectfully,
Brian P.
Ladiesman^
Spaceman
Now way. I made sure of it before I came rambling on, but reading the Confed Handbook everything points to it being the SAME incident.
Now the date in the Confed Handbook and that in Claw Marks are different. Claw Marks is 2629, and the CH has it as 2637 I beleive. But the section in the CH about the dissapearance of the Iason clearly is meant to be THE Iason. Later, in Paladin's bio, it says he was on the ship on that date. To add more fuel to my fire of it being the SAME thing, when Paladin describes being taken prisoner he makes remarks about him not knowing who they were. No if this other Iason had been destroyed and they already knew about the Kilrathi, why would Paladin's crew think when they were under attack the only possible thing it could be was Pilgrims? WHY? Because IT'S THE SAME THING.
It's not that I even care so much. I actually prefer to go with what's in the games. But since the movie and everything related to it is so damned canon, excuses shouldn't be made up for it's tearing apart of the continuity. That's an example right there.
I don't see how you can argue that it's a different situation. The ONLY thing different is the date. So did we have TWO first contacts with the Kilrathi occuring on the SAME ship with the SAME captain?
There's no evidence to say that it's a different incident. None at all. The only thing that even could be considered it the date, but the same event happened at two different dates apparently, so that doesn't count. I'd like to hear some reasoning behind them being "completely different situations"
Blah..I suspect you'll find some way to prove me wrong as usual, but I think I have a pretty good case this time.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
They're completely different situations.
In Claw Marks, the TCS Iason is destroyed after a 22 minute standoff with the KIS K'rath'kan, a Kilrathi destroyer. This occurs on 2669.105.
In the movie, the CS Iason is destroyed after a four hour and thirty three minute communications blackout with three B'ru'k class merchantmen. This Iason manages to survive for 18 minutes, and during this time return fire. This occurs on 2638.229.
In Claw Marks, the TCS Iason is destroyed after a 22 minute standoff with the KIS K'rath'kan, a Kilrathi destroyer. This occurs on 2669.105.
In the movie, the CS Iason is destroyed after a four hour and thirty three minute communications blackout with three B'ru'k class merchantmen. This Iason manages to survive for 18 minutes, and during this time return fire. This occurs on 2638.229.