Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : SARS and Avian Flu -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (1723)	10/7/2004 3:27:59 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 4232

<: "every single one of your ancestors had to beat long odds and go on to have the next generation. Which they did." I don't know about that. Out of about 350 relatives, I believe I have two relatives that died before their 80s, if I exclude the ancestor relative that died of an appendicits at 7 about 75 years ago.> Amy, that's phenomenal! But nevertheless, that's only recent history. If you go back a few hundred years, you'll find your direct ancestors were not all living that long. Women typically have about 10 or 15 children in the wild. So, simple arithmetic says that 80% of those children have to die without reproducing, or the world would have been covered in humans 10 kilometres deep. My grandmother's siblings said that anyone who died younger than 90 had something wrong with them. I think they all went on at least until their latish 80s. Among my 17 cousins, we are all still going and the youngest are now into their 40s and the oldest in their mid 70s and they seem all in fairly good condition [though two had prostate cancer]. So that's a good start, though far from 90. Mqurice