Gambit7

No... how do you gleen that from that statement? All that means is that through war, etc. the human race moderates its own growth. It has nothing to do with life expectancy. Just because the life expectancy might be 180+ years, doesnt mean you're immune to human-created disasters. (sudden or over time)

What's interesting about your question is we actually might get to that point even though we have the tech. to stay alive longer. Even though one may be able to be somewhat immortal, the chances are much higher that they'd be drafted into a war, starved, terrorized etc. (in a hypothetical future) So if you factor external/non-physiological elements into life-expectancy then yes, someday it might actually be lower than it is now.

__________________

eGoatBoy

I haven't ventured into the sandbox in long time, but this one caught my attention, so:

Good & Evil? The world just isn't black and white, and obviously right/wrong gets redefined from time to time (different societies, different times)...that said, I'd hope that it's generally accepted that actions that increase suffering are wrong, and performing such actions knowing that you are willfully increasing suffering could reasonably be considered evil.

As for Will Smith...I think our society pays way too much attention to what celebrities think. The guy was not being unreasonable, but some media marketeer saw a headline in the making and did his job by getting people to read the blather and hopefully notice an advertisment along the way.

Lastly, may I suggest (at the risk of being flamed) a couple interesting books:

For Your Own Good (Am Anfang war Erziehung, 1980)
Alice Miller

American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America
Chris Hedges

Cheers,

__________________

xTYBALTx

Life expectancy takes into account ALL causes of death, violent and otherwise.

So your statement that war, disease, and famine have "moderated" population growth over the past two hundred years would imply that life expectancy has been "moderated" in kind. Which is, of course, bunk.

The fact that over the past two hundred years far fewer people have died from war, disease, and famine than at pretty much any time in the past further suggests your hypothesis is bunk.

__________________
Current Tybalt theme song: Mason v. Princess - Perfect

Gambit7

If you take life expectancy as an average, yes... war, disease, famine, etc. will indeed moderate life extension due to anti-aging... and they have also done this in the past 200 years. So this is not "bunk." Little things like WWI(II), small pox, no one caring about Africa, etc. indeed have an effect on the average life expectancy for the world.

Yes, fewer people over the past 100-200 years are dying due to these causes, but that doesnt mean it wont ramp up in the future due to the reasons I've already expressed. Regardless, population growth is inevitable and so is negligible senescence.

Anyways, I feel like we're hijacking this thread. maybe I or someone else will start another..

__________________

xTYBALTx

__________________
Current Tybalt theme song: Mason v. Princess - Perfect

Zephyr

You do know life expectancy is only going up because it is an average that includes infant mortality rates? Those have dropped sharply and they are what have recently offset the balance to make it look like we've had a dramatic increase in life expectancy over the last century or so. More or less, everyone reaches somewhere between 70 and 80 and is just about ready to die by then due to the nature of genetic code, particularly the cutoff strands on the edges of the continually splitting DNA that get ripped off with each split. Granted my genetics knowledge isn't what it used to be, but it stands to reason that humans aren't going to magically make it to 180 years of age without artificial organs or full body transplants.

Before you say "Well in 20 years we will have them", 40 years ago everyone thought we'd be questing to Jupiter and Mars from our lunar colonies and all flying our flying cars or jetpacks.

Futurists are almost always wrong about one thing: time.

-Zephyr

__________________
You were once like the newbie who needed a hand from above and TacticalGamer gave you it.

You owe the newbie who comes after you that same outstretched hand from above on your honor as a Tactical Gamer.

Tactics at TG come from trust and friendship, not meticulous detail and rigid discipline.

Everyone should be assumed mature until proven otherwise.

We are no clan.
We are not a single game.
We are mature, intelligent, and cooperative individuals.
We are TacticalGamer, a community above and beyond its name.

xTYBALTx

__________________
Current Tybalt theme song: Mason v. Princess - Perfect

leejo

From your self-quote: That's pretty heart-breaking.

Anyway, I sorta skipped to the end of this 4-page discussion. What did I miss?

Inside my crazy brain, I wondered "gee, if Will Smith thinks Hitler was a good person, I wonder what Keanu Reeves thinks about Pol Pot? What do all the action movie stars think about important historical figures?!"

THEN I imagined a team of super action movie stars, joining forces to spread their ideas about cool stuff across the lands, taking on O and that she-devil's wussy Book Club! Bridges of Madison County? Meet the Pirates of the Caribbean novelization! Barak Obama, eat Chuck Norris foot! Rowr, boing, whoosh! Sly Stallone and Will Smith and that chick from Resident Evil and Keanu Reeves could replace The View with their own interesting talk show and their own interesting topical discussions.

And we could argue about their discussions! It's perfect!

Extinct

Wow that movie opened my eyes, Robert Wright had a very good point. I wish everyone would listen and act on the of ideas that have been expressed in this article.