| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
368
   |
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've seen stranger things... By folks who claim to be serious.
Looks to like a guy not afraid to have a bit of fun whilst he's doing business. More power, sez I. |
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
372
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 17:01:00 -
[2] - Quote
Eraza wrote:Doc Fury wrote:Inbreeding is everyone's problem. Make sure that the person you marry is not related to you.
seriously though, what do you expect to happen when your mayor's life work before politics was a professional comedian? he's one of the most famous comedians in icelandic history by the way, :) most people thought him running for mayor was a joke, but people were angry at the old known politicians for the 2008 world economy mess, so they voted for the new guy didnt hurt that he was famous and quite popular too :)
Two word agreement: Sonny Bono |
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
374
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 19:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Plastic Psycho wrote:I've seen stranger things... By folks who claim to be serious.
Looks to like a guy not afraid to have a bit of fun whilst he's doing business. More power, sez I. Our real world needs more leaders looking human like him and less technocrat biblio rats completely dehumanized and most often with power/health emotional/psycho issues. +10 for that man
One of the reasons I love living in Delaware... Our Senators and Representatives show up for the Halloween parade - dressed in costume. Tom Carper typically shows up as Abe Lincoln. Mike Castle usually showed up as Frankenstein's Monster. Bill Roth (rest his soul) often arrived as a blood-sucking vampire.
Nor are they the only ones. ALL the elected officials show up in costume, some quite entertaining. Even Christine 'The Witch' O'Donnell got into the spirit of things (Mother Goose).
Gotta love pols willing to get into the spirit and have a little fun - at themselves, even. |
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
378
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 15:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
William Walker wrote:RubyPorto wrote:William Walker wrote:RubyPorto wrote:As it turns out, the population was probably pretty stable for a long time, then took a chug of rocket fuel around the point where we discovered agriculture. It has since slowed for various reasons.
We also live longer, it would probably have fluctuated a lot when we were beginning civilization. Women would have 4-10 children and half of those would die before age 6. Then half of those would die before age 20. Everyone else died at 40. I wonder how long until we can become 150 or 200 years old? I don't think the average life expectancy of a newborn has ever been 18 years. An average life expectancy of 40 pretty much meant that, if you lived through childhood, and didn't die in a war, you could expect to live into your 60s or 70s. The vast majority of the increase in average life expectancy that's come about in the last century has been related to the precipitous decrease in infant and child mortality. Consider the two following cases: 5% die at 1 yo, 5% die at 5 yo, 90% die at 45 yo. Avg Life expectancy 40.8 25% die at 1yo, 20% die at 9yo, 5% die at 25 yo, 50% die at 75 yo. Avg Life expectancy 40.8 Clearly pretty different populations, same average life expectancy at birth. True. The lower the infant mortality the higher the average life expectancy (Japan), or vice versa (Angola). But I think wars and famines are also significant factors. Could average life expectancy ever surpass 100 if infant mortality would remain at a certain number? I mean these are just averages. What if we didn't take infant mortality into account and just looked at how old people got There is a biological upper limit. Only very tiny fractions of the population live past 95, and even more miniscule fractions pass 100. Sure, as population increases the absolute numbers of people living to 100 goes up, but as a percentage of teh population (and thus contributer to average lifespan) the number remains infinitessimal.
Pretty much, the human body has an upper practical limit to lifespan of around 90 years (with outliers, of course).
|
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
378
|
Posted - 2013.08.30 15:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Plastic Psycho wrote:There is a biological upper limit. Only very tiny fractions of the population live past 95, and even more miniscule fractions pass 100. Sure, as population increases the absolute numbers of people living to 100 goes up, but as a percentage of teh population (and thus contributer to average lifespan) the number remains infinitessimal.
Pretty much, the human body has an upper practical limit to lifespan of around 90 years (with outliers, of course).
That, and the fact that an 80 year old today isn't in significantly better shape than an 80 year old 100 years ago. People are living longer, not aging slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TithonusEternal life without eternal youth is more of a curse than a blessing. Evolution isn't likely to change this much, either. There's no 'sexy' factor for people whith extremely elderly grand and great-grand parents, so there's no selection pressure to increase lifespan beyond about 60 or so. Basically, once our grand children become teenagers* evolution is done with us.
*There's a secondary survival advantage to grand-parenthood; Children with living grand parents have a higher survival rate, and tend to be both physically more fit and mentally more stable. Living long enough to pass lessons in parenting and to support the raising of children is survival selective. |
Plastic Psycho
Necro-Economics
383
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 15:54:00 -
[6] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:In the USA we wish we could get mayors like that.
We usually get bought off globalist stooges. Our mayors tend to get booted out of office lately for touching people. A lot of people. Ladies specifically. It's good to be the king.
Mel Brooks for Mayor! |
| |
|