RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: When Do Humans Begin Aging?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:02   

I've been contemplating a legal scenario and I need some scientific knowledge concerning the commencement of human aging.

As of now in America, we determine our age based upon our birth.  But clearly, we were aging before that based upon the science, no?

When do human beings begin aging?

  
Fross



Posts: 71
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:19   

they're never "not aging".

--------------
"For everything else, there's Mastertard"

   
Ved



Posts: 398
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,17:26   

When egg meets sperm, not only has a new human life begun, but it also immediately begins to age.  If this happens here in the good old U.S. of A., not only is the new human an American citizen, but it must file an income tax return before April 15. But... only after this taxpayer imbeds itself in the uterine wall is it required to make contributions to social security.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,18:04   

Ved,

I agree.  I think scientifically-speaking, the human being starts aging at conception.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,18:12   

Thordaddy....
The fact that you have posted this same topic 5 times clearly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

BS is warm...and therefore subject to thermodynamic laws...
You are actually reproducing BS(entropy)  and therefore increasing BS(entropy)...

You need to stop...these laws exist for a reason...and you might piss God off by constantly breaking them....

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,18:13   

PuckSR,

You have no idea what your talking about, do you?

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,18:48   

says the pot to the er... actually no, it's just the pot talking.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,19:12   

Of course I know what Im talking about...
You think humans age...
but thats ridiculous...we dont age...we are merely changing..
I dont know why conservatives like you insist on calling it aging.

Aging means that you develop extra limbs...but that obviously doesnt happen

How dare you question my capacity for cognation

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2006,20:54   

PuckSR,

Actually, I was envisioning a legal scenario in which one's age (according to the law) was an issue.

For this purpose, I was wondering if it was more in accordance with reality to say that the human being began aging at conception as opposed to birth.

I can see why the law would consider birth the "beginning" of the aging process, but that's only because it's antiquated and  unresponsive to certain scientific realities.

I'm not sure your response would have any relevance in this legal scenario?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,00:41   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,01:54)
PuckSR,

Actually, I was envisioning a legal scenario in which one's age (according to the law) was an issue.

For this purpose, I was wondering if it was more in accordance with reality to say that the human being began aging at conception as opposed to birth.

I can see why the law would consider birth the "beginning" of the aging process, but that's only because it's antiquated and  unresponsive to certain scientific realities.

I'm not sure your response would have any relevance in this legal scenario?

Something tells me thor was another 9 months until he turns 21...  :p

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,00:50   

I was thinking about turning 35 in 2008?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:43   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,05:50)
I was thinking about turning 35 in 2008?

You also thought you were beginning to lose the Sceptre of Trolldom to the competition, and craving for attention you decided to strike back with another pointless thread. Typical.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,02:55   

If Ghost of Dead Arguments ever gets around to posting one of his models, Thordaddy might lose the title of First Crank.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,05:57   

Trolldaddy,
Are you looking for a scientific definition or a legal one? You are (once again) mixing the two.

As far as I see. Legally a human life begins at birth. Scientifically, nobody knows when an individual life starts.

Prediction: This thread will be another waste of time.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,07:24   

actually, Thordaddy has introduced another problem by asking about aging....

Aging is different that "getting older".  Aging means that you are also showing signs of age.  
If we were asking about aging...I would argue that aging cannot occur at "conception".  Depending on your strict intpretation of the definition...
Aging either begins occuring when a fetuses cells first begin replacing themselves...
Or it occurs in your 20s, when your body/mind quit growing and begin deteriorating....

Thordaddy...seriously...this is an even worse question than your others...and it seems like all your trying to do is annoy everyone and make them talk to you.....

BTW....I will quit responding to your posts with inane jibberish when you start showing everyone the same courtesy....

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,07:37   

Quote (PuckSR @ May 05 2006,12:24)
Aging is different that "getting older".

Actually, aging, as for as technical definitions go, only means getting older: adding age.

"Aging" for your view might start when cell death starts over balancing cell making.

I think there is a technical name for cell death when an old cell stops making new cells and just functions until it dies... senscience? ...

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,10:44   

StephenElliot,

Don't you think the "legal" definition for age is in large part antiquated and unresponsive to current scientific findings?

Shouldn't the law mirror reality as closely as possible?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,10:53   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,15:44)
StephenElliot,

Don't you think the "legal" definition for age is in large part antiquated and unresponsive to current scientific findings?

Shouldn't the law mirror reality as closely as possible?

What should the law say about "idiocy"? When does that start?

What point does Red become Orange?

At which point do twins become 2 people?


EDIT:
At which point does a chimera stop being 2 people and just becomes 1?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,10:57   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,15:44)
StephenElliot,

Don't you think the "legal" definition for age is in large part antiquated and unresponsive to current scientific findings?

Shouldn't the law mirror reality as closely as possible?

Age? Who has experienced exceleration?

Moving through space? Or moving because space is expanding?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:01   

StephenElliot,

Why do you bother responding with such drivel?  Are you trying to convey the notion that science is irrelevant in the determination of laws concerning age?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:04   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,16:01)
StephenElliot,

Why do you bother responding with such drivel?  Are you trying to convey the notion that science is irrelevant in the determination of laws concerning age?

Could I borrow an Irony meter?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:08   

StephenElliot,

I hate to upset your sensibilities with my inexplicable power to coerce you to respond, but...

Does science play any relevant role in determining laws concerning age?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:08   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,16:01)
StephenElliot,

Why do you bother responding with such drivel?  Are you trying to convey the notion that science is irrelevant in the determination of laws concerning age?

Which laws dtermine age? Age of what? Do you have a point? Is your point a singularity?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:13   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,16:08)
StephenElliot,

I hate to upset your sensibilities with my inexplicable power to coerce you to respond, but...

Does science play any relevant role in determining laws concerning age?

I would say science plays a very important role in determining laws. What would you say?

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:16   

Please tell me that Thursday isn't going to say that aging starts at conception, thus a bag of cells is a human being, thus abortion is wrong, thus the Pope is right, thus masturbation is OK for women because they don't spill any seed, thus women are all wankers, thus they should not be allowed out of the house, thus we should vote for right wing Christian nutbar fundamentalists.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:20   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ May 05 2006,16:16)
Please tell me that Thursday isn't going to say that aging starts at conception, thus a bag of cells is a human being, thus abortion is wrong, thus the Pope is right, thus masturbation is OK for women because they don't spill any seed, thus women are all wankers, thus they should not be allowed out of the house, thus we should vote for right wing Christian nutbar fundamentalists.

Of course aging starts at conception. You was 0 years old till trick-daddy was concieved. Everyrhing else is a scam.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:25   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 04 2006,22:02)
I've been contemplating

You Liar!

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:27   

A more interesting question might be, do humans STOP aging when they die? If not, at what point might they be considered to stop? Time just flows along, but after a while it makes sense to say "this stuff just isn't a person anymore."

  
Rilke's Granddaughter



Posts: 311
Joined: Jan. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:34   

Quote (Flint @ May 05 2006,16:27)
A more interesting question might be, do humans STOP aging when they die? If not, at what point might they be considered to stop? Time just flows along, but after a while it makes sense to say "this stuff just isn't a person anymore."

OK, here's my question.  If only two things are inevitable, death and taxes, and when you die you stop paying taxes - does that mean that if you stop paying taxes you won't die?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:44   

StephenElliot,

Actually, I was thinking about running for president, but I won't turn "35" until mid January of 2009.

But scientifically-speaking, I will already be 35 years old and in fact I will almost be 36 and therefore eligible to run for POTUS.

Would this hold up in the court of law, I ponder?

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,11:45   

No

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,12:09   

Chris,

Does this mean that in this context that science is irrelevant?

I wonder who determines when science is relevant or irrelevant in matters of law?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,12:31   

####, And I thought this was about something serious, like the legal drinking age...

Come on thor, anybody can be president... I mean, look at the news!

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,12:36   

ok, censoring "damn" is just silly.

<whoops>

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,12:43   

Wes, as good as he is about evolution, is still a christian.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,12:54   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,17:09)
Chris,

Does this mean that in this context that science is irrelevant?

I wonder who determines when science is relevant or irrelevant in matters of law?

It's semantics, you idiot.  The law defines at as years since birth.  It is "years since birth" simply because it is defined as such.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,13:04   

Not just the law... It's tradition, thordaddy. You know, that thing that, if you mess with, society collapses?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,13:28   

improvius,

I thought it was X years old and starting one's age at birth was due to scientific ignorance?

Faid,

Yes, you're right and that's why I thought the "liberal" scientists would be more than willing to change the law to bring it in accordance with reality?

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,13:35   

Thor, if you actually think about such things, you have way too much free time on your hands.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,13:36   

Quote (thordaddy @ May 05 2006,18:28)
improvius,

I thought it was X years old and starting one's age at birth was due to scientific ignorance?

(Sigh.)  Yes, thordaddy, of course you are right.  The law stems from ancient storkist beliefs.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,13:48   

improvius,

So we agree that there is nothing scientific about starting the counting of aging at birth?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,13:55   


   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,14:03   

LOL!!

See, I think all your "liberal" posturing is just for show.  No "liberal" I know has a sense of humor like that!

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,14:07   

looks at card in wallet
Quote
ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union
Mr. Steve Story
Member Since: 2002               52506946
Nadine Strossen                 J (something)
President                           Executive Director
Yep. I'm a liberal.

   
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,14:22   

Quote
So we agree that there is nothing scientific about starting the counting of aging at birth?


There also isnt anything scientific about the age requirements for US reps, Senators, and the President....

Science is applicable when the law is scientific.....
Otherwise it is completely arbitrary...
It isnt even based on the bible or the 10 commandments....

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,15:05   

Quote
Science is applicable when the law is scientific.....
Otherwise it is completely arbitrary...

Sheesh! So we have a binomial distribution: things are either scientific or they are completely arbitrary. We have no other choices. Right?

Age requirements are empirical and heuristic. We step back, sight over our thumb, kind of get the gist of the issue, and do something workable. It's not *completely* arbitrary, it just has a lot of degrees of freedom.

When someone is deemed a "person" is determined using basically the same methods. We know by trial and error that (1) the starting date must be well defined (within a day), not guessed at; (2) That the legal and practical ramifications must be socially affordable. If infant mortality within the first month is over 50%, it's practical to start counting a month after birth, once the "crisis period" has passed; otherwise it's too expensive.

So while there is a good deal of flexibility in what is workable and practical, that doesn't mean "arbitrary" by any stretch. We know someone 10 years old can't operate a vehicle responsibly. We know that by the time someone is 30, they've long since been capable. So the age of "responsible enough" lies somewhere between 10 and 30. Not arbitrary, so we're talking about degrees of constraint.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,15:25   

do you mean binary instead of binomial?

   
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,16:03   

probably

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2006,19:39   

wow...that was a huge rip on arbitrary...
Maybe i used the wrong word...but i was using it in comparison to scientific....

The definition and intpretation of most laws is at least *somewhat* subjective.....
Im not saying that most laws are just pulled out of a hat...but that the rationale behind most laws....not scientific...

Sorry if using the word arbitrary pissed you off....I didnt mean to...
If i get a chance...I will find a better word...but in the meantime...calm down

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,06:11   

most older societies condidered you to be "born" after you could walk on your own. That was why infantacide was legal and practiced in all preindustrial societies. It hinged on the highly influencial Uggh v. Mbong where the judge in his opinion stated Aaaahhhhh!!!! and threw his club at Mbong.

Thordaddy, give it up. Either it's a legal issue or it's a moral issue. If gay marriage, abortion, drug use, free market capitalism (ala milton friedman), the use of military force et.al. are the right way or the moral way, then why are you doing this? Why not just say, GOD, GUNS and GUTS made this country strong and I will follow blindly, right or wrong?

These aren't good legal arguments. They aren't good moral arguments. In fact they aren't good rational arguments. You need to answer the question "why does it matter?" before you ask questions.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,06:15   

Quote
It hinged on the highly influencial Uggh v. Mbong where the judge in his opinion stated Aaaahhhhh!!!! and threw his club at Mbong.
LOL that reminds me of the great fedex commercial.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8181801990250175607

apologies for that being google video, the worst video player ever made, by anyone ever, including RealPlayer.

   
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 07 2006,06:18   

OMG that might be the funniest commercial I've ever seen. I should watch more tv.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  51 replies since May 04 2006,17:02 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]