Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mmmmm.....tea.....

 mega_bassist wrote:
Mmmmm.....tea.....

Milk, sugar, lemon, or none?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
Mmmmm.....tea.....

Milk, sugar, lemon, or none?

What tea are we having first?

 mega_bassist wrote:

I do have one thing - I wish I knew why human's have terrible teeth and eyes. I mean, how did we evolve so well when half of people now a days need something to help them see? Hell, I can think of three different people I game with (along with myself) on a normal basis that are completely useless without glasses/contacts.

To be fair, you're also probably close to the end of your "natural" lifespan. That is, were there not antibiotics, vaccines, and clean food/water.

I have plenty of anecdotes about domesticated animals in their final years having their hearing, eyesight, and teeth fall apart. It's not just humans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
Mmmmm.....tea.....

Milk, sugar, lemon, or none?

What tea are we having first?

Hot Earl Grey, straight up, much like the archetypal gangsta of our time.

Dawg.

 daedalus wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
Mmmmm.....tea.....

Milk, sugar, lemon, or none?

What tea are we having first?

Hot Earl Grey, straight up, much like the archetypal gangsta of our time.

Dawg.

Daedy baby you always know exactly what to say to me XD

purplefood wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
Mmmmm.....tea.....

Milk, sugar, lemon, or none?

What tea are we having first?

I usually have *unsweetened black tea.

Note, I'm still new to tea. I only really started drinking it regularly recently.

daedalus wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:

I do have one thing - I wish I knew why human's have terrible teeth and eyes. I mean, how did we evolve so well when half of people now a days need something to help them see? Hell, I can think of three different people I game with (along with myself) on a normal basis that are completely useless without glasses/contacts.

To be fair, you're also probably close to the end of your "natural" lifespan. That is, were there not antibiotics, vaccines, and clean food/water.

I have plenty of anecdotes about domesticated animals in their final years having their hearing, eyesight, and teeth fall apart. It's not just humans.

Truth. However, most of us had to get glasses in our younger years. And I really hope that 25 wouldn't be the end of my lifespan

 mega_bassist wrote:

purplefood wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:
Mmmmm.....tea.....

Milk, sugar, lemon, or none?

What tea are we having first?

I usually have *unsweetened black tea.

Note, I'm still new to tea. I only really started drinking it regularly recently.

Now that is the best. Especially if you get the loose, organic stuff.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 mega_bassist wrote:

I usually have *unsweetened black tea.

Note, I'm still new to tea. I only really started drinking it regularly recently.

Now that is the best. Especially if you get the loose, organic stuff.

Well, it appears I'm doing something right I picked up some Earl Grey the other day, but haven't made it yet. We'll see if Picard has a good tase...

To be fair, you're also probably close to the end of your "natural" lifespan. That is, were there not antibiotics, vaccines, and clean food/water.

I have plenty of anecdotes about domesticated animals in their final years having their hearing, eyesight, and teeth fall apart. It's not just humans.

At the end TBone had about a four inch vision and was deaf as a door. But he could still smell him some treats.

feth, sorry to bring that up. :(

 daedalus wrote:
To be fair, you're also probably close to the end of your "natural" lifespan. That is, were there not antibiotics, vaccines, and clean food/water.

Probably not. There's not much you can glean from most "average lifespans" from the past due to the number being dragged down due to the number of infant and child deaths. Most people who survived to adult hood lived well past the "average" lifespan.

^^^

The idea that human life expectancy has increased in the last two centuries (or so) is something of a myth. Really, I'd argue how long a human being can live, hasn't really changed at all in 5000 years. Rather, the circumstances that can kill us before we reach that point have markedly reduced in frequency.

Child mortality is virtually eliminated in the West. If a baby is born and healthy, its very abnormal for it to die. That alone has thrown the 'average' completely off. Add on that maternal mortality, is also way down. Giving birth 200 years ago was extremely dangerous. Women died all the time.

Now people also have better diets. Yeah we have an obesity epidemic, but a fat guy is still probably going to live longer than some Roman peasant who is living off bread and dirty water (not to mention the reason we have so many spicy seasonings, is because people used to eat rotten food all the time).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
To be fair, you're also probably close to the end of your "natural" lifespan. That is, were there not antibiotics, vaccines, and clean food/water.

Probably not. There's not much you can glean from most "average lifespans" from the past due to the number being dragged down due to the number of infant and child deaths. Most people who survived to adult hood lived well past the "average" lifespan.

With your point in consideration though, Wikipedia says this of the Classical Romans, sidestepping the infant/child death issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy wrote:At age 10, life expectancy was an additional 35 to 37 years (total age 45 to 47)

...I don't actually know how old mega_bassist is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
The idea that human life expectancy has increased in the last two centuries (or so) is something of a myth. Really, I'd argue how long a human being can live, hasn't really changed at all in 5000 years. Rather, the circumstances that can kill us before we reach that point have markedly reduced in frequency.

Isn't that kind of a nitpick though? You don't really die of old age. I mean, the passing of time isn't what kills you. Something kills you, be it a tumor, organ failure, or whatever.

Alternatively, I'm immortal until I die.

In short: no.

In long: think of Stephen Hawking. If we did not have excellent medical science, he would be dead. If he were dead, we would (most likely) know a fair bit less about our universe and therefore be less able to adapt to it.

So, if the whole of humanity can gain from having one person survive long enough to think up some science thanks to modern medicine, how does letting people die make us stronger?

 daedalus wrote:

Isn't that kind of a nitpick though? You don't really die of old age. I mean, the passing of time isn't what kills you. Something kills you, be it a tumor, organ failure, or whatever.

Alternatively, I'm immortal until I die.

Actually, the passing of time literally DOES kill you: For every year past 30, you lose 1% of your body efficiency. Your body just starts slowly deterioration and shutting down thanks to age and time. We have a very real expiration date of 131.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Nietzsche would approve of this thread.

I hope you are being sardonic.

Nietzche, misunderstood by everyone since 1844

And misspelled by everyone since 1844

But wasn't Nietzsche's Übermensch basically a ruthless Cesare Borgia-style guy that acts only in his self interest and expoits those who are weaker; with values that most people see as good, like charity or modestness considered as a 'slave moral'?
At least, that is what I remember from the single philosophy lesson that was dedicated to Nietzsche. Nietzsche does not seem to be a very popular guy which maybe is one of the reasons of him often being misunderstood.
I have also heard that Hitler took a lot of inspiration from Nietzsche. I wonder if that is true or not. There do seem to be some similarities.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
In short: no.

In long: think of Stephen Hawking. If we did not have excellent medical science, he would be dead. If he were dead, we would (most likely) know a fair bit less about our universe and therefore be less able to adapt to it.

So, if the whole of humanity can gain from having one person survive long enough to think up some science thanks to modern medicine, how does letting people die make us stronger?

Who's to say that there couldn't or wouldn't be another Hawking-esqe person born?

 Iron_Captain wrote:


But wasn't Nietzsche's Übermensch basically a ruthless Cesare Borgia-style guy that acts only in his self interest and expoits those who are weaker; with values that most people see as good, like charity or modestness considered as a 'slave moral'?

I don't think there's any agreement on the concept because, for the same reason he's kind of only discussed as a sort of philosophical oddity, his work is a rambling mess of about 75% nonsense. Go read Beyond Good and Evil. It's like he wrote whatever random thought popped into his head with no filter and no one bothered organizing the notes.

I can't remember if any of his work was published in his life (I know his wife or his sister or something published some of it, but I can't remember if she was the one who just threw it all together in a manner that makes it rather incoherent).

I have also heard that Hitler took a lot of inspiration from Nietzsche. I wonder if that is true or not. There do seem to be some similarities.

Nazism was heavily influenced by his work, but mostly on a horrible misconception of what he was really talking about. Like I said. reading Nietzsche () is like reading someone's jumbled thoughts. I mean people still take his "God is dead" statement wildly out of context.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Isn't that kind of a nitpick though? You don't really die of old age. I mean, the passing of time isn't what kills you. Something kills you, be it a tumor, organ failure, or whatever.

Alternatively, I'm immortal until I die.

Actually, the passing of time literally DOES kill you: For every year past 30, you lose 1% of your body efficiency. Your body just starts slowly deterioration and shutting down thanks to age and time. We have a very real expiration date of 131.

But no one has ever lived to be that old yet.

Many cancers are caused by the break down of the natural process of cell division. the reason the 'cure' for cancer is a misnomer is because many forms of cancer are simply the break down on the bodies natural processes. You can treat it, but there is no cure. Entropy hits our bodies like it hits most other things in the natural world. Sooner or later it just stops working. Arguably the human body on average is only built to last between 85 and 95 years.

 LordofHats wrote:
I know his wife or his sister or something published some of it, but I can't remember if she was the one who just threw it all together in a manner that makes it rather incoherent

When he became ill (crazy) at the end of his life and his sister took over his care it was her and her husband that 'edited' it to make it more in line with their proto-Nazi beliefs. That is how we go from him saying "nationalism is a poison" to being closely associated with Nazism.

 LordofHats wrote:
Many cancers are caused by the break down of the natural process of cell division. the reason the 'cure' for cancer is a misnomer is because many forms of cancer are simply the break down on the bodies natural processes. You can treat it, but there is no cure. Entropy hits our bodies like it hits most other things in the natural world. Sooner or later it just stops working. Arguably the human body on average is only built to last between 85 and 95 years.

Yay, someone else who knows that there is no 'cure' for cancer.

Normally I get a lot of stick for saying this, then I hit people with a stick. Natural selection and all that.

 daedalus wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Isn't that kind of a nitpick though? You don't really die of old age. I mean, the passing of time isn't what kills you. Something kills you, be it a tumor, organ failure, or whatever.

Alternatively, I'm immortal until I die.

Actually, the passing of time literally DOES kill you: For every year past 30, you lose 1% of your body efficiency. Your body just starts slowly deterioration and shutting down thanks to age and time. We have a very real expiration date of 131.

But no one has ever lived to be that old yet.

122 is the oldest we've gotten. Also, the prevailing theory is that we can't survive with only 6-5% efficiency and that 125 is the limit in actuality.