Forum: Author Hangout

The more mundane one is an extreme best case outcome for efforts like sens.org where they manage to "repair all the (cellular) damage from aging."

Which in theory should revert you(once complete) back to your 20's in nearly all physical respects, and even younger in others, as even 20 year olds have accumulated "cellular damage" from aging related processes.

In one of the Greenies" series they have succeeded in repairing (or even regrowing limbs) all cellular damage in younger people but they cannot stop dementia at a somewhat delayed age

In one of the Greenies" series they have succeeded in repairing (or even regrowing limbs) all cellular damage in younger people but they cannot stop dementia at a somewhat delayed age

Well, it seems that some of the stuff that group in particular also seems to be a very major contributor to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, dementia and a few other neurological conditions typically linked with aging.

That was perhaps a bit of a happy accident for them, they were going after aging in general, and stumbled into that. Needless to say, pursuing counters to that particular biochemical pathway now has financial backing not related to anti-aging research.

Honestly, it depends on various other factors in play at that point.

Edit: The bigger concern is the longer-term impact of "generational change" grinding to a halt as their elders don't have to stand aside due to age related infirmities. One of the biggest enemies to scientific progress is "a highly influential scientist" after all. They tend to not take well to people proposing theories that contradict their own conclusions.

The age regression sort of scenario is something I'm playing with in a story series—there are loads of implications to that sort of technology/magic, though. What effect would that have on our military? How would politicians abuse it?

This is central to Elizabeth Moon's Serrano Legacy series.

The Rejuvenation treatments were expensive. It resulted in a major split between those who had access to Rejuvenation treatments and those who didn't, as well as some "discount" Rejuvenation treatments turned out to have unpleasant personality changes included.

Advancement within all aspects of society slowed to a crawl, while subtle and not-so-subtle changes in planning began to show up; those who realized that they might be facing indefinite life extension started taking a lot longer to consider a project "complete", this was most obvious with Artists, as their published works became much less frequent, and the spark of originality semed to be missing, as they'd kept tweaking their project until it was "perfect". But the same thing happened with all that utilized the Rejuvenation treatments and planned to continue doing so.

Others became much more Expansionist in their political stance; expanding the borders of their polity at the expense of neighboring polities as indefinite life extension without stringent controls on new births results in a population boom.

Offspring, rather than becoming the leaders in their families in thirty years or so, faced centuries or longer in sub-ordinant positions within the family; some dealt with this by becoming part of new colonization efforts, some by immigrating to anti-Ageist polities that outlawed Rejuvenation, while still others resorted to assassination.

Intervention by anti-Ageist polities combined with undeclared Civil War was the result.

The series of six books makes a very interesting read; she put a lot of thought into this matter.

while subtle and not-so-subtle changes in planning began to show up; those who realized that they might be facing indefinite life extension started taking a lot longer to consider a project "complete"

Well, on corporate scale, I think one thing that would happen with a significant/indefinite life extension becoming reasonably available is that the "5 year ROI" would become much less important, with more people down the line at 10, 20, 25, or more years for their return on investment numbers. Which means mega-projects not underwritten by a government would become much more common.

Another side effect is a 50/50 split on how corporations treat their employees. The population boost means more bodies, so more chattel to be had(which automation also make increasingly less relevant).

While the other side is cultivating strong relations with your employees could also begin to demonstrate "strong ROIs" as well.

What effect would that have on our military?

I can see several scenarios depending on the cost of the procedure.

1) In cases of severe injuries, a person's mind could be placed into a clone of their old body to not lose their training or abilities.
2) Generals might want to use it to prolong their time in power.
3) If the process was very cheap for the military, then boot camps might consist mostly of classroom instruction, and designed to weed out those who don't have the right mentality to belong in the military. Those who graduate would get transferred to new bodies selected based on what they would be doing after their military occupational specialty school. The actual differences between those bodies would be relatively minor, at least initially although that might change as time went on, but they would be as close to "Captain America" as possible by genetic manipulation.

would get transferred to new bodies

How are those bodies created?
What with the brains of those bodies?
Aren't there minds in those brains?

HM.

How are those bodies created?

What with the brains of those bodies?

They are already growing replacement ears with 3D printing and I think they have done a liver or kidney. Artificial hearts seem to be almost here even now. Brains are a little more complicated but when they get super-supercomputers on the job ......
As for minds, why not split a mind, transfer one half and the two will regrow?

They are already growing replacement ears with 3D printing and I think they have done a liver or kidney.

Last I checked as of a couple months ago, 3d printing of organs/tissues ends at the need for a vascular system inside the organ. Ergo recent news about success with printing viable mouse testes, but the observation it isn't fully relevant for humans. Ours requires a vascular system, the mouse doesn't need one.

Now once we figure out how to 3d print blood vessels, that's another ball game.

A 3-d printed organ is not biological, so the need for food and oxygen and the need for waste disposal are not required.

Tell that to the biotech firms that are using 3d printers to create "frameworks" for organic tissue to grow on/in.

A 3-d printed organ is not biological, so the need for food and oxygen and the need for waste disposal are not required.

???
If the replacement organ can't do what the original organ is supposed to do, then it's not a replacement organ.

If the replacement organ can't do what the original organ is supposed to do, then it's not a replacement organ

It is all a matter of design. An artificial vein or artery can do what the original did. Heart valves seem to work.
OTOH I guess livers and kidneys are too complex for 3D printing at the moment but they have manufactured an artificial heart.
I know that artificial skin ** can be used and real skin grows on it as it slowly dissolves.
** There is a similar glue to mend bones approved in Europe but I have never heard of it being used.

** There is a similar glue to mend bones approved in Europe but I have never heard of it being used.

Super glue was originally developed as a medical adhesive and is used as a substitute for sutures.

I've not heard of it being used on bones though.

ETA: I've done some searches, I find something called bone cement (it's not a true adhesive, it actually works more like grout.) that's used for attaching implants to bones, but not fracture repair.

I found a number of articles about research into adhesives for fracture repair, but the most recent was from 2014 and all of the articles I found indicate that they aren't yet at the point of human trials.

Super glue was originally developed as a medical adhesive and is used as a substitute for sutures.

I've not heard of it being used on bones though.

sent to email

... and some stocks to invest in.

I would want to remember IBM, Microsoft from the start, park in Berkshire Hathaway for all of 2000-03 when the dotcom bubble burst, then Apple!

like I said, bitcoins in 2010 and you will be a billionaire

That's why I mentioned things from the 1970's - many of us were alive when JFK was President. And personally, I'd rather have money 40 years ago if I'm doing a do-over.

If you have access to time travel and you want to get rich, buy stock at the bottom of the 1929 market crash and then fast forward over then next 40 years.

We weren't talking about straight time travel, though, we were talking about a mulligan on your life.

That's weird, why do you want to put an Irish Stew on your life?

There is more than one definition of the word "mulligan". One of the is a term used in informal golf for a "do over" of a bad stroke.

My guess is StarFleet Carl might have been thinking about that definition, but expanding it beyond just golf to include all aspects of a person's life.

Doing a quick search for the word Mulligan on SOL I found the following

Over half of the stories/chapters found referred to the pen name Mulligan either as an author, or in a thank you for his contributions as editor and/or proofreader.

The second most common use was as a Surname, either as a character name or that of a place named after someone with the surname Mulligan.

The third most common use (including the two stories titled "Mulligan" and Mulligans") it refers to a chance of a do-over although not always restricted to a golf course.

Mulligan as an Irish Stew comes in fourth place

golf

golf backward is flog. (like with a whip.)

Next time add a smiley when you're joking. I've heard it helps.

I apologize, in that case a smiley wouldn't help at all.

The time-traveler's (or do-over) guide to making money. For any given couple of years, just some sports things to bet on and some stocks to invest in.

Go back to the 1600s and buy Manhattan Island.

Go back to the 1600s and buy Manhattan Island.

The government would come along and take it claiming 'Eminent domain'

story hooks.

Ones that have worms or other live bait and then fish on them?

...age regression sort of scenario...

Dangit! There goes another of my plot lines! :(

In the fantasy saga "mother of learning" there is a little history lesson, that explains, that Vampires and other undead creatures cant function as a society because there is nothing you can do to advance. every position is filled, no one is dying. And generations fight against each other because a father could never pass on his wealth and property because he doesn't die.

This is a major problem with worldbuilding a society that has immortal beings who can have children.

Well, there is a difference between functional immortality(where (involuntary) death by "natural causes" is highly unlikely), and practical/actual immortality(vampires, the "Highlander" immortals, etc).

As to:

And generations fight against each other because a father could never pass on his wealth and property because he doesn't die.

This is a social construct issue, not a immortality "problem."

cant function as a society because there is nothing you can do to advance. every position is filled, no one is dying.

Is a little more relevant, but only pertains to an otherwise static environment where nothing (significant) is changing. An undying population with FTL, or hell, without FTL but the ability to build something on the order of Ark Ships would need to be around a VERY long time to "fully utilize" a Galaxy never mind extra-Galactic resources.

If some of NASA's estimates from the 70's and 80's prove to be even within a couple orders of magnitude, we could potentially support hundreds of billions of humans in this solar system alone. (They forecast tens of Trillions, IIRC) We just have to decide it is worth the effort to get off this rock.

Well, there is a difference between functional immortality(where (involuntary) death by "natural causes" is highly unlikely), and practical/actual immortality(vampires, the "Highlander" immortals, etc).

I would go to three types.

Death by natural causes is highly unlikely / very long natural lifespan (more than an order of magnitude greater than a normal human lifespan).

Unaging/eternal, lifespan is unlimited, no death by "old age", but other natural causes like diseases could still be a problem as is violent death.

True immortality, can't die by any cause.

There could be 3 scenarios I can think of, off the top of my head.

- Vampires can't hide their nature. If there are too many in a region, they get hunted down until the smoke settles again.

- normal animalistic economy. Why doesn't a predatory animal wipe out their food source? Sure it sometimes happens, but you don't normally see a population explosion of tigers or lions or wolfs etc. Predators are very territorial and I think Vampires would kill each other if they think there isn't enough for everyone.

- Humans don't get killed, they get blood-milked.

- Humans don't get killed, they get blood-milked.

In P S Powers' stories, vampires drink small amount of blood to establish a link to a human from whom they get energy. It's important to them to keep the "donors" alive -- a dead human means no more energy. Eventually, the links fade, and a vampire has to have more blood to establish new links; but killing humans is not only dangerous, but completely counterproductive.

Instead of any form of rejuvenation like in Serrano Legacy I prefer slower aging as in Honorverse.

But the end should come fast, no years or decades of agony.

Such as in Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

Such as in Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.

Next on the Red Green Mars show, how to fix your spaceship with duct tape and bailing wire. :)

I see what you did there...

If you didn't, you'd need new glasses.

posited a starfaring society descended from our own, where true personal immortality derived from a once only, inexpensive, medical treatment had resulted in functional star travel; if you can live forever, near c velocities are good enough for star travel, no need for FTL; relativistic effects prevent it from becoming too boring during your voyage.

Well, the person traveling near C doesn't so much care about their lifespan, it's the ones they leave behind they'd care more about.

But as current medical/biological knowledge goes. Living(or more specifically: metabolism) -> cellular damage -> accumulated damage body cannot repair on its own -> aging.

The metabolism angle leads to one example that works great on mice and other simpler life forms: caloric restriction. Which also does have some minor health benefits for humans, but based on experiments with Chimps, the change in lifespan is "not statistically significant." So people pursuing that shouldn't hold their breath on that.

That said, we've identified all kinds of organic compounds from various sources that do a very good job of cleaning out various forms of accumulated junk from the tests they've run so far. It is just getting the stuff to human trials and getting it approved(or disproven/nasty side-effects to be found).

From memory the stuff "in the pipeline" already is running from reversing some forms of arthritis(not treating/managing symptoms), to reversing macular degeneration, to dissolving amyloids(think cholesterol) accumulated in the circulatory system, to dissolving "plaques" accumulated on neurons(Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and dementia), to a means of reversing hardening of the cardiod muscles as people age(one of the leading causes of death for 100+ year olds), or another fun one: a potential means of treating or otherwise significantly reducing the risk factor for (the spread of) several common forms of cancer(some of which are difficult to treat at present) and that's another one where they weren't specifically looking to cure or otherwise treat cancer, although they knew it might have applications there.

The next couple decades in medicine is going to be very interesting to watch.

There are other tracks of research also underway, such as use of adult stem cells to "refresh" the immune system and so on. But that form of treatment has to be tailored to the individual, where the others are techniques which are more "generic" in nature in that only the dosage should require adjustments.

Oh, and they've also locked down several of the compounds involved in more cosmetic concerns. At least in the lab cultures, they're able to get the epidermis to break down scar tissue, and otherwise get it to do things that weren't possible previously. Why spring for a full body replacement when you can potentially get away with maybe only needing to take a series of pills + shots + medicated creams for a couple months every decade or so?

Why spring for a full body replacement when you can potentially get away with maybe only needing to take a series of pills + shots + medicated creams for a couple months every decade or so?

There might not be a big need to for a full body replacement just to extend someone's life in most cases. There would be other situations though

For some it would be an extreme version of early 21st century cosmetic surgery for instance a 2m (6'6.74") tall man becoming a 1.5m (4'11") tall woman.

Depending on how fast it worked, it could save the life of someone fatally injured.

It could in theory even be used to aid in the commission of a crime if a criminal organization acquired that technology, either by leading law enforcement officers to believe the main suspect was dead or potentially using that technique to frame someone else for a crime.

It is just getting the stuff to human trials and getting it approved

Which is most likely going to be blocked by politicians backed by 'Big Pharma' because it cuts into their profits or could even put them out of business.

Which is most likely going to be blocked by politicians backed by 'Big Pharma' because it cuts into their profits or could even put them out of business.

So long as we allow contributions to those running for political office, that type of thing is going to occur; in general, people don't pay for something without expecting something in return. Thus, the larger the initial amount of money a given individual/organization has available, the greater the influence they can accrue via contributing to different candidates for office.

I don't know what impact it might actually have, but limiting political campaign contributions and advertising to individuals and businesses based within the boundaries of the district they would represent might at least make that influence coincide with the interests of their direct constituents. Based within, not located within, so national chains, organizations, and wealthy individuals could only directly influence the elections of those where they had their nationalk headquarters or primary residences. If one succeeded in preventing the funneling of funds through shills, it would drastically decrease the impact of any of the current funding organizations and individuals.

Which is most likely going to be blocked by politicians backed by 'Big Pharma' because it cuts into their profits or could even put them out of business.

Flip side, and likely to keep politicians out of it:

Verified "cures" or otherwise anything that greatly improved "healthspan" even without regard to lifespan. Would also in return have significant capability to reduce health care costs for the elderly by a significant margin.

Ditto for anything close to a viable "cancer prevention" treatment. Cancer treatments and healthcare for the elderly are the biggest line items in most healthcare budgets the world over.

Which isn't to mention what the voters would do if they caught wind that viable treatments were available in other nations, but were being deliberately suppressed in their own nation.

Edit to add: And if it's viable, somewhere is going to offer them. The potential "health tourism" boom it would grant that/those nations is huge. As the "target demographic" for such treatments is literally everybody. And while certain powerful interests may want to greatly restrict access to it, they're certainly going to want access to it themselves. Which cycles back to somewhere will offer it, and keeping that knowledge under wraps is going to be damn near impossible.

As the "target demographic" for such treatments is literally everybody.

The 'target demographic' is ALWAYS the people who can afford to pay their price.

The 'target demographic' is ALWAYS the people who can afford to pay their price.

Well, the other other side of this is a lot of the funding and research now happening on those lines also is coming from the tech sector. Google and Apple both have major projects of their own underway. In the case of Sens.org it also has the backing of a few tech Billionaires outside of Google and Apple.

"Big Pharma" trying to step on this is probably going to get an unwelcome surprise when the likes of Google, Apple, Bezos, and Musk intervene against them. Big pharma vs Google alone should make for a hilarious fight to watch unfold nevermind anyone else getting involved.

Well, the person traveling near C doesn't so much care about their lifespan, it's the ones they leave behind they'd care more about.

They wouldn't care about anything because their mass would be approaching infinity. Not a nice way to go

So darn many questions and so few answers.

And every answer brings with it 10 new questions.

And every answer brings with it 10 new questions.

At least and each new answer only creates a hundred more questions. A never ending cycle. But that is what makes life interesting. Always something new to learn.

Among them were events I could have avoided such as spending that 4 years in that damned hospital. But with out that experience and the things I learned while there, I could not have helped those young ones I found living on the streets.

Well, in the context of a do-over you would still remember the first time through. So you wouldn't need to go back through to learn things you already know. Although it may present challenges as to how you know what you do.

Of course, that doesn't address the rest of it.

Of course, that doesn't address the rest of it.

Add the factor that I can't help but think I would make even worse mistakes or at least that is the odds anyway.

I played with the premise in my head a few times.

In one of the scenarios, I got back into my 5- or 6-year-old body together with a female friend at that time (who, not sometime later moved away and I never saw her again. To this day, my family teases me about my pre-school girlfriend and the ridiculous stunts we pulled) In that scenario, she would not move away and we try to fix the world. There would be also other people who got sent back, but they were planted in the 50's and 70'2 and have key industrial positions to help us.

But for my "dream-scenario", I would be the only one. I don't want to do anything earth-shattering, just relive my youth with the starting point of 2017. Even with all my other friends and family, it would be fundamentally different because of the technology. I grew up in a village on a farm.
When I was a kid, there were several dozen of kids in the village and hundreds in the neighbor villages. If only I got age regressed, I would be alone, most of the villages in this region are "dead" kids-wise.

I played Bridge for many years and never heard the term used at any of the dozen or so clubs I played at in four cities.

I've never heard it either in many years of playing bridge, but you would never hear in any form of competitive bridge: hands are not re-dealt after being passed out because zero is a legitimate score.

You very rarely hear the term being used in reports about professional golf, either. A 'mulligan' does not conform with official golf regulations, it's only used in private friendly matches.

You very rarely hear the term being used in reports about professional golf, either.

I think it is. The expression is such a part of the lexicon of the game that journalists routinely use it in vaguely appropriate situations.
Some recent examples:
http://www.golfchannel.com/video/monday-mulligan-kid-takes-big-swing-whiffs-falls/
http://www.golfchannel.com/article/golf-central-blog/sh-park-takes-advantage-ultimate-mulligan-evian/

Might be true for the sloppy U.S. sports reporters. A dignified German reporter would never make such horrendous mistakes.

Might be true for the sloppy U.S. sports reporters. A dignified German reporter would never make such horrendous mistakes.

Thank you for that wholehearted and gracious concession. :-)

Might be true for the sloppy U.S. sports reporters.

At least WE* won't be bothered by them at the next World Cup.

* Australia just qualified, beating Honduras (who'd knocked out USA) 3-1. :-)

* Australia just qualified, beating Honduras (who'd knocked out USA) 3-1. :-)

OK but didn't the USA win the Olympics soccer a few years back?
Looking at how the Americans need armour when they play football perhaps they have become worried about the legal aspects of possible injuries. ;-)

OK but didn't the USA win the Olympics soccer a few years back?

Nope.
Their most recent medal in men's football was a silver in 1904.

Nope.
Their most recent medal in men's football was a silver in 1904.

Even though there was no third place officially awarded at the time in the inaugural 1930 FIFA World Cup, later on FIFA awarded USA men's team third place. In the following World Cup, USA's team was the last to qualify - only 3 days before the start of the competition.

You're thinking of the World Cup, in which we utterly destroyed Japan in the final match.

Then it is not just worse but infinitely worse.
Olympics is amateurs/shamateurs but World Cup is for Pros.
Australia does not seem to have the name of say Brasil, Italy, Portugal, even "Marge'n Tina" etc.

America were in a group which included stars Mexico and even Costa Rica but only had to get third place in a group which included a lot of small states; they seem to have failed - the figures I have show them level with the USA at 9 points (Panama 10 points)

I can't be sure but if they got fourth place then they have to beat an Asian side in two matches to survive. Otherwise they are o u t.

I can't be sure but if they got fourth place then they have to beat an Asian side in two matches to survive. Otherwise they are o u t.

Yes.
The final stage of qualifying for North America and the Carribbean had six teams playing a double round robin. The top three (Mexico, Costa Rica, and Panama) qualified for next year's finals in Russia; fourth (Honduras) had to play-off against the fifth team from the Asia group (Australia); and USA failed to qualify when they finished fifth.
BTW, the 3-1 score I mentioned above for Australia winning over Honduras was the aggregate score from the home-and-away play-off.

I reckon the men have several other sports where they can make more money and be more recognizable to the public

That's a lame excuse. In Australia, we have three other codes of football which have higher profiles, yet we still manage to run out a competent soccer team.

Guys here can makes tens of millions a year playing baseball or basketball or US football or even hockey.

Only a small handful of players in each sport actually make that much.

Averages are:

NBA $5.15 million
MBL $3.2 million
NHL $2.4 million
NFL $1.9 million.

Guys here can makes tens of millions a year playing baseball or basketball or US football or even hockey. Soccer isn't a draw among the youth.

Oh, it can be such fun baiting Americans - suggesting U.S.A. may not be clearly superior to all others, at anything, however insignificant - then sit back and watch what happens when egos start twitching.
I expect a few Brits and Germans will understand what I mean. :-)

Nope, as a German I've to decline any try of fraternization in this context. I accepted the US sports athletic superiority since I first watched professional female wrestling on an US TV-channel.

but I honestly believe that for guys in this country soccer is insignificant.

I would bet that if you polled US men over the age of thirty and asked what they think about soccer, the most popular answer would be "what's soccer?"

I would bet that if you polled US men over the age of thirty and asked what they think about soccer, the most popular answer would be "what's soccer?"

QED my point about fishing for fun!

You'd lose that bet, DS. There was a poll done - by the U.S. Census Bureau, no less - and they found soccer was the "third-most played team sport in the U.S." (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1249.pdf)

It's NOT lack of interest that's causing their failures. The number of registered male players in America, about 2.5 million (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/bcoffsurv/emaga_9384_10704.pdf) is more than the entire male population of two countries (Coata Rica and Panama) which just qualified instead of them.

You'd lose that bet, DS. There was a poll done - by the U.S. Census Bureau, no less

Your link doesn't work.

Sorry, the page you requested has either been moved or is no longer available on this server.

I think I found the data you were trying to point to here: https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/tables/12s1249.xls

Note: While it shows 13.5 million soccer players, participation drops off drastically with age and 74% of soccer players are under 25 (both sexes combined).

No, I don't think that counters my comment as it was limited to men older than 30

ETA: total US population is around 326 million, with 120 million men. With less than 8 million men playing soccer, and the vast majority of the players being kids, I'd say my bet still looks pretty safe.

US population is around 326 million, with 120 million men.

That would leave 206 million women. Something is wrong about that ratio. I know men die faster than women, but why do men have trouble getting dates when there are 86 million more women?

"Men" only counts male people of adult status. There are about 100 million more non-adult people.

Summat's queer there. Normally the birth ration is somewhere around 51 female to 49 male so should one apply that or an approximately similar ratio to the 100 million non-adults?
If so something is killing off adult male Americans so, fellas, beware

Summat's queer there. Normally the birth ration is somewhere around 51 female to 49 male so should one apply that or an approximately similar ratio to the 100 million non-adults?

Not all that queer.

It's been well known for decades, that the average life expectancy for women is higher than for men, and the average age of the US population has also been increasing for decades.

The numbers I quoted above were from Wikipedia and were based on estimates of population change since the 2010 census.

I've checked the 2010 census data on age and sex here https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

2010 population was 309 Million, 152 million men and 157 million women (all ages).

The ratio stays fairly close until around age 40 and by age 100 the ratio of women to men has increased to 4-1.

Normally the birth ration is somewhere around 51 female to 49 male

The census data contradicts what you said, if you are using ratio instead of ration. "The sex ratio at birth in
the United States has been around 105 males for every 100 females". The Y sperm swim faster than the X sperm. The egg always provides the X. XY is male, XX is female.

all sorts of fun combinations.

Google "Turner Syndrome" for some of them. Fortunately, they are quite rare.

Or google "Chromosome abnormality"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The three major single chromosome mutations; deletion (1), duplication (2) and inversion (3).

The two major two chromosome mutations; insertion (1) and Translocation (2).
A chromosome abnormality, disorder, anomaly, aberration, or mutation is a missing, extra, or irregular portion of chromosomal DNA.[1] It can be from an atypical number of chromosomes or a structural abnormality in one or more chromosomes.

The two major two chromosome mutations; insertion (1) and Translocation (2).
A chromosome abnormality, disorder, anomaly, aberration, or mutation is a missing, extra, or irregular portion of chromosomal DNA.[1] It can be from an atypical number of chromosomes or a structural abnormality in one or more chromosomes.

Maybe it's just the next step in human evolution.

evolution.

Favorable changes drive evolution forward. Random changes seldom turn out to be favorable. But if mutations stop, so will evolution.

But if mutations stop, so will evolution.

As long as humans see anything different as defects and mutations, they will try to correct them. If they can't 'fix' them, they will try to eliminate them. Only when they cannot eliminate the 'defect' do they begin to accept it as being a 'normal' condition, and even so with great resistance.

Except in cases of XY-women and XX-men. And then you have X and XXY and all sorts of fun combinations.

Which just goes to show that 'Science fact' is only true until it is proven wrong.

If so something is killing off adult male Americans so, fellas, beware

If many of the postings on YouTube are a reliable indicator, i'd say stupidity would be the largest cause of death for young (supposedly adult) males.

If many of the postings on YouTube are a reliable indicator, i'd say stupidity would be the largest cause of death for young (supposedly adult) males.

Yeah, male bravado, particularly while young and dumb, kills a lot of men off.

Men also tend to be very disproportionately represented in dangerous lines of work. As such, they're far more likely to die as a consequence of "something happening" at work than women are.

From Soldiers to Fire Fighters and Law Enforcement, to construction workers and numerous other industrial environments that can make things turn ugly quick if somebody screwed up.

If many of the postings on YouTube are a reliable indicator, i'd say stupidity would be the largest cause of death for young (supposedly adult) males.

I love it. I was tempted to post a list of things contributing to higher death rates among males, e.g. homicides, suicides, reckless behaviours, poor lifestyle choices leading to heart attacks, ...
But 'stupidity' says it all!

If many of the postings on YouTube are a reliable indicator, i'd say stupidity would be the largest cause of death for young (supposedly adult) males.

I would accept that as a major cause but far from the only one. Stupidity because lack of experience allows them to push the bounds - fast cars, dangerous sports, fights ....
Of course fast cars includes racing drivers - of those I worked with the vast majority were in their late teens and twenties and we had two killed on the same day - unusual and the risk of death is now seriously diminished.

Youngsters have access to situations which older people don't - notably at universities and either don't have or don't use safety equipment. From what I hear this is rare in the USA but over here, after uni youngsters travel to far off places doing all sorts of adventurous things but not always knowing the risks and without full protection against criminality and disease.

I don't know the figures but from those I knew disease is another killer - older people have built up resistance. In my own family a young brother and sister died on the same day and a couple more died at about the same time of disease.

A bit ancient but the 1919 Flu pandemic killed the young and fit rather than the old.

either don't have or don't use safety equipment.

That's not necessarily a youth/inexperience thing. High iron workers (the people who work on building the steel girder frames for tall buildings) are required by OSHA regulations to wear tethers anchoring them to the structure to protect them from falling.

However, a lot of older high iron workers refuse to use the tethers. They feel that anyone not confident enough or well balanced enough to work without a tether shouldn't be in that line of work at all.

A bit ancient but the 1919 Flu pandemic killed the young and fit rather than the old.

Not quite. It killed the young and the old, the fit and the infirm alike. By the time it was over it killed nearly a third of the global population.

And there is one solid reason for that. It was the last major flu pandemic before the development of intravenous fluid replacement.

The primary mechanism by which the flu, whether one of the specific named varieties or the generic seasonal flu, kills is by dehydration.

The primary mechanism by which the flu, whether one of the specific named varieties or the generic seasonal flu, kills is by dehydration.

Damn it, DS! You just destroyed the crucial final twist in a story I was planning.

However, a lot of older high iron workers refuse to use the tethers. They feel that anyone not confident enough or well balanced enough to work without a tether shouldn't be in that line of work at all.

I haven't done that job but I have been in similar height situations. Although the use of ropes was normal there were times when they were a nuisance and very occasionally a distinct danger.

For the past fifty odd years that I can remember people have ben worrying about overpopulation and food scarcity. Yet these are the same people who are doing their utmost to increase the population by encouraging better health services, new drugs, safety measures..... AND we elect these people to mess things up!

The latest from our politicians is wanting the end (presumably death)of babyboomers (born in the 1950s and 1960s) because it is us who live in houses that the government says should be occupied by youngsters and we occasionally get ill.

That would leave 206 million women. Something is wrong about that ratio. I know men die faster than women, but why do men have trouble getting dates when there are 86 million more women?

Again, if the source I used was short on the number of men, that only makes my bet stronger.

... why do men have trouble getting dates when there are 86 million more women?

Because those women aren't interested in men.

Because those women aren't interested in men.

At least not in the ones who ask them out. But I don't want to disabuse you from the idea of a lesbian utopia, in case you have one.

At least not in the ones who ask them out.

Sadly that seems the case when I am the one asking.

Then 30 to 35 years ago this area added hockey in the winter,

My first reaction was: if played in winter it must be ice hockey. But then I thought of southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana and Florida where playing field hockey in winter might be the solution to avoid the excessive summer heat.

HM.

But then I thought of southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana and Florida where playing field hockey in winter might be the solution to avoid the excessive summer heat.

I'd be SHOCKED! if Joe, an American, meant field hockey. It's almost exclusively been a sport for Commonwealth and European countries.

They only play field hockey and lacrosse at expensive private schools.

But you were talking regular schools above, right? Please tell me I don't need to hunt for my supply of nitroglycerine tablets.

Sounds pretty typical of the Baby Boomers: always clamoring for participation trophies instead of accepting the loss.

Actually ... the American soccer administrators really should arrange a bunch of international friendlies for their national team during the World Cup. The schedule of matches for top European clubs is incredibly packed. It would have been difficult for FIFA to schedule six windows during the last year, of about one week each, when top-level club matches across Europe and elsewhere are suspended, allowing national squads to assemble and play a couple of World Cup qualifying matches. In the next year, the six windows will all be together during the lead up to and competition of the World Cup. That's the only period when the US national side could be assembled, play some friendlies, and allow the manager to work on team-building and tactics. That might well be the only time during 2018 that some of its players ever see each other.

However, FIFA will not allow anything to be arranged that even resembles any kind of "tournament". They have this tendency to regard their multi-billion-dollar profits from each World Cup as, um, sacrosanct. They would never allow anything to compete with that golden-egg-laying goose. If administrators from countries which failed to qualify did attempt to organise any such event, FIFA would surely send out its heavies to do things to the guilty parties which would have made Marquis de Sade feel squeamish!

The USA is trying to organise a tournament for the losers, like themselves, who didn't make it to the finals.

They don't have many to choose from, because the eventual qualifiers were remarkably close to the current FIFA world rankings.
The only teams who qualified and whose ranking is not close to the top of the rankings within their own confederations are Morocco and Panama.
There are a few big names who missed out. There is a four-time winner, Italy; a three-time finalist, the Netherlands; the current Copa America champions, Chile; and Wales who are currently ranked 14th in the world.

OK but didn't the USA win the Olympics soccer a few years back?

USA men's team has never won a international tournament outside of CONCACAF. The USA women's team on the other hand has won the FIFA Women's World Cup three times (and medaled in the other four times), they also won a gold medal four times.

* Australia just qualified, beating Honduras (who'd knocked out USA) 3-1. :-)

after a draw in the first game.

do-over

Probably in England, near the white cliffs of Doover.