tonymaillman Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Some excellent flint finds from the latest dig near Huyton ........... more artefacts left from the 'highly skilled' hands of our ancestors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Wonder how many NVQs` they had?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted February 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 Obs ...... they didn't need 'nonsense' like that back then ....... skills were acquired through years of practice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Not that many years surely? Think life expectancy was around 40-50 if that; and they didn't even smoke, binge drink or over-eat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Yes years ! .......... 40 to 50 ?? if you were VERY lucky maybe. As regards life span and learning/acquiring skills ........... ALL of us - even today - are learning new things every day, so NO time limit can be put on anything Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Wonder if they knew they would die "early"?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted February 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 None of us know that ......... thank goodness ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 .."early" - as in average life expectancy: guess they didn't know if you don't smoke,drink or eat junk food you can live forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted February 7, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Yes I know what you meant by early ........ life expectancy centuries ago had a lot of defining factors. Medication, nutrition, immunity to disease etc etc. Later on (Mediaeval/Tudor periods especially) you wre considered lucky by surviving birth, as was the mother who was giving birth. There was also a 'class' factor (again nothing changes ), those termed as peasants were maybe lucky if they reached the age of 10 - 12, with 35 - 50 being a very good age. These reasons/factors governing life expectancy have changed very little over many centuries, still prevelant today i.e. health, nutrition, social class etc ....... hence my continuing addage that we are supposed to have advanced ....... but have we ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 No. Man doesn't learn from the past. He just adapts to the new technology, but still fails to understand what life is about. And because of the continual brainwashing, he won't evolve any further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Yet despite all the death and disease, the human race continues to increase in population; like a virus on the Planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 The good news is that the world population is actually expected to stabilise at around 9 billion. However if Al Gore and his supporters get their way this figure will drop dramatically due to disease, starvation and war. Rather than spending trillions of dollars (and pounds) on a futile attempt to control the climate of the planet the money should be spent on improving water supply, disease prevention and security of the third world countries. Of course the measures espoused by the Global Warming apostles will only affect the poor, not Al and his kin. Â [ 07.02.2008, 23:17: Message edited by: asperity ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 8, 2008 Report Share Posted February 8, 2008 But isn't disease and starvation, natures way of saying there are insufficient resources to support our level of population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonymaillman Posted February 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 Apocalyptic in a way Obs .......... supply and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted February 11, 2008 Report Share Posted February 11, 2008 So: would it seem logical Captain, to control population levels in some way?! Or would Vulcan logic conflict with Human emotion?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.