PDA

View Full Version : World death rate...



Jens
2007-Jun-28, 02:19 AM
The New Scientist site has an article titled Global warming will increase world death rate (http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12146-global-warming-will-increase-world-death-rate-.html). It's funny. I thought the rate was already 100%.

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-28, 02:26 AM
Well I still appear to be alive so it can't be 100%. Death rate would be the the number of people who died in a year over the number of people who didn't, wouldn't it? But then the year isn't over yet so I suppose it could still get up to 100%. Do you know something we don't?

Argos
2007-Jun-28, 04:04 PM
Well, people live with high temperatures on a daily basis in the equatorial and tropical zones, and the high mortality rates are linked to everything but the heat.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-28, 04:54 PM
Well, people live with high temperatures on a daily basis in the equatorial and tropical zones, and the high mortality rates are linked to everything but the heat.

Here in Tucson it's been 103F-108F each day for the past week and a half! :)

Chuck
2007-Jun-28, 05:06 PM
With a sufficiently high temperature, the death rate will spike and then drop to zero. Sounds good to me.

Argos
2007-Jun-28, 05:13 PM
Here in Tucson it's been 103F-108F each day for the past week and a half! :)

Yeah, man thatīs crazy! Believe it or not, I seldom see these temps down here in my state. :)

Lurker
2007-Jun-28, 07:26 PM
Well I still appear to be alive so it can't be 100%. Death rate would be the the number of people who died in a year over the number of people who didn't, wouldn't it? But then the year isn't over yet so I suppose it could still get up to 100%. Do you know something we don't?
Yeah... but the chances of you dying are around 100% so one of these years...



With a sufficiently high temperature, the death rate will spike and then drop to zero. Sounds good to me.
Global warming will weed the weak ones out... good for the evolutionary process... :)

Swift
2007-Jun-28, 07:33 PM
Yeah... but the chances of you dying are around 100% so one of these years...

I don't know, I go with Steven Wright's line about this; "I'm planning on living forever... so far, so good".

Lurker
2007-Jun-28, 07:38 PM
I don't know, I go with Steven Wright's line about this; "I'm planning on living forever... so far, so good".
Glad to hear it... but as a public service I am required to inform you that the actuarials do not favor your continued success... :whistle:

LurchGS
2007-Jun-28, 07:48 PM
I note the article doesn't really discuss the groups of people most likely to succumb (other than mentioning heart attacks and the like). History indicates it's the old and infirm who suffer most in a heat wave. <br><br>

Overall increase in ambient, though, would not have the same effect. A gradual increase in temperature of a few degrees (F) over the course of a century is far, far different from a relatively sudden increase of 20 - 30 degrees (F) for a week or two.

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-28, 08:37 PM
I note the article doesn't really discuss the groups of people most likely to succumb (other than mentioning heart attacks and the like). History indicates it's the old and infirm who suffer most in a heat wave.

It's amazing what you can adapt to if you must. I grew up in Alabama in the days before air conditioning was common. For those who may not know, it gets very hot and humid there. Somehow, people survived. For that matter, Native American tribes survived for a long, long time before air conditioning was invented. Aborigines in Australia and the natives in Africa (both really hot places) managed to survive, too. Somehow, I think humanity will survive again.

I'm flying to Alabama for a week, leaving tomorrow night. Over 20 years of living in Colorado has weakened my tolerance for hot, humid weather (especially the humidity). Fortunately, air conditioning is common now.

Lurker
2007-Jun-28, 09:17 PM
I note the article doesn't really discuss the groups of people most likely to succumb (other than mentioning heart attacks and the like). History indicates it's the old and infirm who suffer most in a heat wave. <br><br>

Overall increase in ambient, though, would not have the same effect. A gradual increase in temperature of a few degrees (F) over the course of a century is far, far different from a relatively sudden increase of 20 - 30 degrees (F) for a week or two.
Yeah I noticed this too... I suppose that if climate change occured it might allow certain types of plants and animals to migrate to new areas. This might be cause increases in those areas. However, other areas will become more Hospitable and those areas might well have lower death rates.

For most of our planet's history, it's been warmer than it is right now. We are somewhere in the midst of an ice age. When it ends, we can expect a return to warmer, more characteristic temperatures... so... we should be ready when the time comes... :)

Ronald Brak
2007-Jun-29, 04:00 AM
GRANNY: Sonny, I feel so weak, could you get me a glass of cold water?

REALIST: I'm sorry granny, but your death is necessary for humanity to adapt to higher temperatures.

GRANNY: But I'm way past reproductive age. Whether I live or die I'm not going to pass on any of my genes!

REALIST: You're right. I should have had you killed years ago.

Jens
2007-Jun-29, 04:16 AM
Well I still appear to be alive so it can't be 100%. Death rate would be the the number of people who died in a year over the number of people who didn't, wouldn't it? But then the year isn't over yet so I suppose it could still get up to 100%. Do you know something we don't?

It's true that the death rate is usually defined as an annual one. But it doesn't have to. You could presumably have a daily death rate, which would be much lower.

The thing that makes it kind of complicated, IMO, is that one of the major determinants of the death rate is the age structure of the population. If you have a society with few children, like in most developed countries, you will get a higher death rate because, well, old people tend to die at a higher rate than young people. Conversely, a society with a growing population will have a lower death rate (unless the infant mortality rate is high, of course). I think it's better to use something like predicted longevity.

Maksutov
2007-Jun-29, 04:25 AM
Yeah I noticed this too... I suppose that if climate change occured it might allow certain types of plants and animals to migrate to new areas....Plants and animals living together! Another sign of the apocalypse!

It's an amazing trend that, once past a certain age, the older a person gets, the fewer persons of the same age are also still around.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-29, 04:26 AM
Yeah, man thatīs crazy! Believe it or not, I seldom see these temps down here in my state. :)

Are you in Bauru?

Noclevername
2007-Jun-29, 04:32 AM
Global warming will weed the weak ones out... good for the evolutionary process... :)

The bad news is, we've subverted the evolutionary process. Now that we've invented guns, a weak person can shoot a strong one and steal his air conditioner.

Van Rijn
2007-Jun-29, 08:24 AM
The Onion covered the death rate issue some time ago:

World Death Rate Holding Steady At 100 Percent (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236)

Death, a metabolic affliction causing total shutdown of all life functions, has long been considered humanity's number one health concern. Responsible for 100 percent of all recorded fatalities worldwide, the condition has no cure.

Take that, Global Warming!

Jens
2007-Jun-29, 09:04 AM
The Onion covered the death rate issue some time ago

Thanks for that link.

Ronald Brak asked me, "Do you know something we don't?" I know what it was, now. I read the Onion article! :)

Stuart van Onselen
2007-Jun-29, 09:35 AM
It's amazing what you can adapt to if you must...

<LOUD BOOMING VOICE> HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER? </LOAD BOOMING VOICE>

Firstly, I think a 1°C temperature rise is the least of our direct worries re: global warming. Major flooding would probably kill more.

Secondly, I've waited decades for a chance to use that Bill Cosby quote. Woot! :dance:

Lurker
2007-Jun-29, 04:18 PM
GRANNY: Sonny, I feel so weak, could you get me a glass of cold water?

REALIST: I'm sorry granny, but your death is necessary for humanity to adapt to higher temperatures.

GRANNY: But I'm way past reproductive age. Whether I live or die I'm not going to pass on any of my genes!

REALIST: You're right. I should have had you killed years ago.
Naw... we waits fer evolution ta git her... we ain't animules ya know!! :)



The bad news is, we've subverted the evolutionary process. Now that we've invented guns, a weak person can shoot a strong one and steal his air conditioner.
Naw... evolution has made us thinking animals that could invent guns. So in a sense evolution gave us the gun to weed out those who are weaker!! ;)

Lurker
2007-Jun-29, 04:20 PM
It's true that the death rate is usually defined as an annual one. But it doesn't have to. You could presumably have a daily death rate, which would be much lower.

The thing that makes it kind of complicated, IMO, is that one of the major determinants of the death rate is the age structure of the population. If you have a society with few children, like in most developed countries, you will get a higher death rate because, well, old people tend to die at a higher rate than young people. Conversely, a society with a growing population will have a lower death rate (unless the infant mortality rate is high, of course). I think it's better to use something like predicted longevity.
Good point... global warming as evolutionary pressure to increase the breeding rate...

farmerjumperdon
2007-Jun-29, 04:50 PM
The Onion rules, or rocks, . . . or something.

One detail I'd point out is that the physically and/or intellectually strong are going to have advantages no matter what. (Well, maybe except for those person-in-the-street type game shows that can end up rewarding people for not knowing their own state capital and really goofy stuff like that).

Even things like guns, while they may narrow the gap in the occasional one-on-one confrontation, do not really equalize the chances of survival. A stupid person with a gun is still a stupid person, and should not present much of a problem to an intelligent person with a gun.

Larry Jacks
2007-Jun-29, 07:18 PM
A stupid person with a gun is still a stupid person, and should not present much of a problem to an intelligent person with a gun.

But a stupid person with a gun can be deadly to a smart person who is unarmed. So, if you're smart, you'll pack heat!

From the movie "Unforgiven"

Bam!

"You just shot an unarmed man!"

"He should have armed himself."

Noclevername
2007-Jun-29, 07:20 PM
But a stupid person with a gun can be deadly to a smart person who is unarmed. So, if you're smart, you'll pack heat!

Or, you can be smart but have poor aim.

Gillianren
2007-Jun-29, 08:01 PM
Or, you can be smart but have poor aim.

Yes. Yes, you can. I should well know.

SeanF
2007-Jun-29, 08:59 PM
A stupid person with a gun is still a stupid person, and should not present much of a problem to an intelligent person with a gun.

But a stupid person with a gun can be deadly to a smart person who is unarmed. So, if you're smart, you'll pack heat!

From the movie "Unforgiven"

Bam!

"You just shot an unarmed man!"

"He should have armed himself."
While Unforgiven was an excellent movie, that quote gives somewhat the wrong impression when the last sentence is cut off like that.

"He should have armed himself if he's going to decorate his saloon with my friend's body."

RalofTyr
2007-Jun-29, 09:23 PM
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236

Argos
2007-Jun-30, 12:06 PM
Are you in Bauru?

Yes! Have you ever been here*?

*Very hot in summer, still, temps around 105F are rare. :)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jun-30, 02:45 PM
Yes! Have you ever been here*?

*Very hot in summer, still, temps around 105F are rare. :)

No. Never been south of Nogales, Mexico - so far. I knew you were in Brazil due to your avatar and the coordinates narrowed it down. What the heck are you doing down there? Born there? Working there?

But I do have a Brazilian futbol T-shirt!

RalofTyr
2007-Jun-30, 07:32 PM
I'm sure there are a Brazilian reasons he's here.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 03:14 AM
The weather sevice is predicting 114F here next Wednesday, the 4th. I guess I should relish the current 106F. :lol:

sarongsong
2007-Jul-01, 05:06 AM
Motor west; you're only a few hours from the coast!

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 05:11 AM
Motor west; you're only a few hours from the coast!

About 8 hrs to San Diego.

Relief is closer than that. I can drive 45 mins and be on top of Mt. Lemmon, 9000 ft, and the temps are 30 degrees cooler. A few restaurants and bars there. Pretty nice.

mattweather
2007-Jul-01, 05:16 AM
Theres no 100&#37;

sarongsong
2007-Jul-01, 05:45 AM
I'm 100&#37; sure I won't be touring Tucson any time soon :)

foreignkid
2007-Jul-01, 05:54 AM
I'm 100% sure I won't be touring Tucson any time soon :)

Tucson's hot, sure, but I bet there are many other great things to do there. Right, Tim?

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 05:55 AM
I'm 100% sure I won't be touring Tucson any time soon :)

Don't. And tell everyone you meet the same thing. :)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:02 AM
Tucson's hot, sure, but I bet there are many other great things to do there. Right, Tim?

Well, all places have their pluses and minuses.

The desert is not for everyone (this is the Sonoran Desert) but yes, there are many things to do here. Biking, hiking, camping. As far as astronomy is concerned, I can sit out almost every evening of the year, no bugs, no mosquitos, no condensation on the scope. It's perfect for star-gazing. Ask David Levy.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:06 AM
BTW, foreignkid, does that mean you grew up somewhere besides the US? Just curious.

foreignkid
2007-Jul-01, 06:07 AM
Don't. And tell everyone you meet the same thing. :)

:cry: And I was trying to stand up for you.

But Tucson's great! I mean, where else can you see such majestic... cacti? Huh? What about apathy? They've got the most of any city in the country! And how about... er... TUXEDOES!! Yeah.. They've got it all in Tuk-son.

foreignkid
2007-Jul-01, 06:08 AM
BTW, foreignkid, does that mean you grew up somewhere besides the US? Just curious.

Yup, native of Romania. Just a little country in Eastern Europe... Recently admitted in the EU, mind you.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:11 AM
:cry: And I was trying to stand up for you.

But Tucson's great! I mean, where else can you see such majestic... cacti? Huh? What about apathy? They've got the most of any city in the country! And how about... er... TUXEDOES!! Yeah.. They've got it all in Tuk-son.

The Saguaro is native to only here, the Sonoran Desert. Several other cacti are also only found (natively) here.

I won't get into the politics of Tucson - or AZ. :)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:12 AM
Yup, native of Romania. Just a little country in Eastern Europe... Recently admitted in the EU, mind you.

Your English is excellent. Did you have to learn English in school? Or did you learn it on your own?

foreignkid
2007-Jul-01, 06:14 AM
The Saguaro is native to only here, the Sonoran Desert. Several other cacti are also only found (natively) here.

Who called it??

This is SO off topic, so I'll try to bring it back...
So, how about that death rate, people?

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:14 AM
Sorry. We're drifting off the OP subject. Jens may get upset - and rightfully so.

foreignkid
2007-Jul-01, 06:17 AM
Your English is excellent. Did you have to learn English in school? Or did you learn it on your own?

Thank you,
I learned English on my own, from watching cartoons while in Romania. I actually got in trouble at school for correcting my (very BAD) English teacher on proper grammar. Turns out that I was right.

sarongsong
2007-Jul-01, 06:37 AM
...I can drive 45 mins and be on top of Mt. Lemmon, 9000 ft, and the temps are 30 degrees cooler. A few restaurants and bars there. Pretty nice.Wow---that would be high desert! http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Here's (http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/images/mitchelldan/TuolumneMeadows20040515.jpg) your neighbor state at 8600...[pronounced two-ALL-oh-me (http://jrabold.net/yosemite/intro2high.htm)]

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:42 AM
Wow---that would be high desert! http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Here's (http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/images/mitchelldan/TuolumneMeadows20040515.jpg) your neighbor state at 8600...[pronounced two-ALL-oh-me (http://jrabold.net/yosemite/intro2high.htm)]

I don't need convincing that CA is beautiful. I was stationed at Monterey, CA for a year in the service. Traveled all over.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:43 AM
Wow---that would be high desert! http://www.bautforum.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Here's (http://facultyfiles.deanza.edu/images/mitchelldan/TuolumneMeadows20040515.jpg) your neighbor state at 8600...[pronounced two-ALL-oh-me (http://jrabold.net/yosemite/intro2high.htm)]

Well, most of Tucson is at 2500 ft.

Maksutov
2007-Jul-01, 08:17 AM
I'm sure there are a Brazilian reasons he's here.
Brazilians and brazilians...

-Carlos Sagan http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

Maksutov
2007-Jul-01, 08:29 AM
Well, all places have their pluses and minuses.

The desert is not for everyone (this is the Sonoran Desert) but yes, there are many things to do here. Biking, hiking, camping. As far as astronomy is concerned, I can sit out almost every evening of the year, no bugs, no mosquitos, no condensation on the scope. It's perfect for star-gazing. Ask David Levy.Plus Tucson has its own mountain peak built from a kitt.

Per Mel Tillis, no one wants to go down to Tucson in the summer.

So that means the natives can enjoy it all to themselves.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-01, 12:15 PM
It's true that the death rate is usually defined as an annual one. But it doesn't have to. You could presumably have a daily death rate, which would be much lower.Why would you expect the daily death rate to be lower than the annual death rate?

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 12:25 PM
Why would you expect the daily death rate to be lower than the annual death rate?

Um, because days are shorter than years?

ADDED: Man, that would have to be one really bad day.

Or it could be a day on Venus, but I'm pretty sure the death rate there is zero.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 12:36 PM
But it's a rate.


:doh::doh::doh:

But, of course, the day might be a slow one, compared to other days of that year. So, it could be lower than average.

Disinfo Agent
2007-Jul-01, 12:44 PM
No, you were right. The definition of death rate is the total number of deaths divided by the average population during some time period. Since the average population should not vary much along the year, it's reasonable to assume that the death rate will be higher in longer time periods. My mistake.

Jens
2007-Jul-01, 12:52 PM
No, you were right. The definition of death rate is the total number of deaths divided by the average population during some time period. Since the average population should not vary much along the year, it's reasonable to assume that the death rate will be higher in longer time periods. My mistake.

That's right, and you take it to extremes. The death rate per second is very, very low, because a small number of people will die each second. By contrast, if you take the death rate over a century, it will be close to 100%, though not 100% because there will be a number of people who are still living at the transition. So the only use of the annual death rate is asa comparator between different places. Though as I wrote earlier, a society with a growing population will tend to have a lower rate than a society with a shrinking population (and hence, many elderly people).

Noclevername
2007-Jul-01, 12:54 PM
No, you were right. The definition of death rate is the total number of deaths divided by the average population during some time period. Since the average population should not vary much along the year, it's reasonable to assume that the death rate will be higher in longer time periods. My mistake.


Well, I was technically right, but for the wrong reason. So, still :doh:.

Maksutov
2007-Jul-01, 01:06 PM
Let's face it.

The death rate isn't all it's croaked up to be.

Argos
2007-Jul-01, 01:47 PM
What the heck are you doing down there? Born there? Working there?

Well, just living (and working). I was born here. ;) :)

Tucson_Tim
2007-Jul-01, 06:27 PM
Well, just living (and working). I was born here. ;) :)

BTW, I love your avatar. :)

foreignkid
2007-Jul-02, 05:42 AM
BTW, I love your avatar. :)

I always thought it was a peacock feather. Then I looked closer.

WAIT! "Argos" was the 100-eyed monster, whom Juno put in the sky as a constellation, but not before taking his eyes and putting them on her favorite bird, the PEACOCK. Man, Argos, you are more complicated than I thought...

Argos
2007-Jul-02, 05:21 PM
BTW, I love your avatar. :)

Thank you. The background represents the two most important influences in my life. ;)

@ Foreign kid: Oh, not that complicated. Iīm a simple man. :) Now it occurs to me that both of us speak a romance language from the craddle.

Well, to keep it OT [Jens - not to mention the mods - must be getting upset with these ramblings] the mortality rate here in my state is similar to the European and American rates [again, I dontīthink theyīre related to the heat, even in summer]

JohnBStone
2007-Jul-02, 11:04 PM
It's funny. I thought the rate was already 100%.
To bring this back on topic with some good old fashioned statistical-pseudo-logic, a 100% death rate is only certain with 94% confidence. 6 billion of the estimated 100 billion humans who have ever lived are still alive. So you have a 6% chance of never-dying ;-)

And mathematically it only takes one person to be immortal to push average life expectancy to infinity - if one term in an equation is infinity then the result must be infinity or zero...

sarongsong
2007-Jul-02, 11:28 PM
...it only takes one person to be immortal...Like that person (or more) would report it ;)

Jens
2007-Jul-03, 01:22 AM
To bring this back on topic with some good old fashioned statistical-pseudo-logic, a 100% death rate is only certain with 94% confidence. 6 billion of the estimated 100 billion humans who have ever lived are still alive. So you have a 6% chance of never-dying ;-)

And mathematically it only takes one person to be immortal to push average life expectancy to infinity - if one term in an equation is infinity then the result must be infinity or zero...

That's great news. Though I see a flaw in the statistic with the one immortal person. The problem is that you never know whether they are really immortal until eternity has passed; which it can't...

peteshimmon
2007-Jul-04, 06:05 PM
This is a subject that interests me as I want to
see the histogram of mortality and note how long
I might have left. Though I am planning to go as
far to the other side of the big hump as I can:)
I found a blog by one of our politicians asking
for comments on pensions and I posted my very
clear request for such information. Trouble was
I forgot where I posted it and put in three more
posts grumbling. Then I get an e-mail telling
me the first was posted. Then the others were
as well. Google gets there with "mortality
histograms". I thank the chap with a return
e-mail three weeks later and it bounces back
telling me the address is no longer valid. I
hope I did not get the chap sacked!

Anyway, I have put aside local press weekly
obits for the past few years to do a diagram
myself. But I just cannot find the time for
such a miserable exercise:(

JohnBStone
2007-Jul-04, 10:02 PM
There are cool SVG population age histogram-pyramids at
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/populationestimates/svg_pyramid/default.htm

and you can see the death trend by playing the pyramids through time.

There are lots of mortality statistics to view or download on that site too.

Lurker
2007-Jul-04, 10:49 PM
Is there a counter example to the 100% mortality rate?? It only takes a single case... :think:

Maksutov
2007-Jul-05, 09:13 AM
This is a subject that interests me as I want to
see the histogram of mortality and note how long
I might have left....If your interest is personal, you might want to go here (http://www.deathclock.com/) and fill in the appropriate information.

JohnBStone
2007-Jul-05, 12:42 PM
If your interest is personal, you might want to go here (http://www.deathclock.com/) and fill in the appropriate information.
Wow, they place an unfeasibly large value on optimism - it changed my outlook from another 6 years to another 50 years.

EDIT: in fact it seems to change the date semi-randomly every time I run it - at least in firefox.

SeanF
2007-Jul-05, 01:05 PM
Is there a counter example to the 100% mortality rate?? It only takes a single case... :think:
Well, most Catholics believe there was one - but there's no empirical evidence. :)

JohnBStone
2007-Jul-05, 05:14 PM
Well, most Catholics believe there was one - but there's no empirical evidence. :)
I was thinking that transhumanists and perhaps singularitists (?), amongst others, would suspect that one day we will be able to upload human minds to computer - at that point you are very difficult to get rid of and effectively immortal. The argument is whether you are still human and count in the average death rate results?

peteshimmon
2007-Jul-05, 05:54 PM
That is a good site about population pyramids
thanks. This is a more cheerful way of looking
at what is going on. I did not realise the peak
from 1950 was so sharp, the baby boomers! It was
all the recycled Spitfires and others made into
Prefabs that did it:) Thank you Mak but I do
not get into answering lots of impertinent
questions on these websites. That goes for
IQ tests as well:)

Noclevername
2007-Jul-05, 05:56 PM
I was thinking that transhumanists and perhaps singularitists (?), amongst others, would suspect that one day we will be able to upload human minds to computer - at that point you are very difficult to get rid of and effectively immortal.

Unless you're run on Windows. :doh:

Lurker
2007-Jul-05, 06:50 PM
Well, most Catholics believe there was one - but there's no empirical evidence. :)
Oh yeah... the one that involved the virgin birth... :whistle:

Gillianren
2007-Jul-05, 09:41 PM
Not quite. Remember, He died. The Virgin herself was taken bodily into Heaven.

SeanF
2007-Jul-05, 09:51 PM
Not quite. Remember, He died. The Virgin herself was taken bodily into Heaven.
It was the Virgin herself to whom I was referring, yes. However, she was involved in the Virgin Birth, so I didn't want to assume Lurker's comment didn't refer to her. :)

Lurker
2007-Jul-05, 11:13 PM
Not quite. Remember, He died. The Virgin herself was taken bodily into Heaven.
I was refering to the fact that he was suppose to have been the product of a virgin birth. I don't think he really is a counter example to the 100% mortality issue... :)

Gillianren
2007-Jul-05, 11:24 PM
I was refering to the fact that he was suppose to have been the product of a virgin birth. I don't think he really is a counter example to the 100% mortality issue... :)

To a devout Catholic, she is.

Lurker
2007-Jul-05, 11:27 PM
To a devout Catholic, she is.
Yeah... that's the rub... lots of people have exceptions, but the verification is a bit of an issue...

SeanF
2007-Jul-06, 12:01 AM
I was refering to the fact that he was suppose to have been the product of a virgin birth. I don't think he really is a counter example to the 100% mortality issue... :)
As Gillianren's said (twice now), He is not a counter example - not so much because of the virgin birth, but because He died.

She, however, (according to Catholic teaching) was assumed into Heaven body and soul without ever dying. Mary is the counter-example, not Jesus.

But, as I said, there's no empirical evidence for it. :)


Yeah... that's the rub... lots of people have exceptions, but the verification is a bit of an issue...
Are there other (supposed) exceptions, besides Mary in Catholic teaching?

Delvo
2007-Jul-06, 01:08 AM
Jesus was also taken straight to Heaven...

...and anyway, regardless of those two, the Old Testament tells of one or two men being taken straight up long before, although in one case it's a matter of interpretation of verses which a few have interpretted otherwise. That would be Enoch in Genesis 5:22-29, father of Methuselah (the man who lived the longest human life ever, at 969 years) and great-grandfather of Noah (apparently somewhat of a "survivor" himself :D). The interpretation that he did in fact ascend without death is canonized in Hebrews 11:5 which says so much more unambiguously. The other guy is Elijah, a prophet who has several more references in the Bible and is associated with a bunch of other extra-Biblical ideas such as that he had returned to Earth and was present at the Crucifixion, would return to Earth before Jesus (to Christians) or the true Messiah (to Jews) does at some future date, was a reincarnation of certain previous legendary person or persons and/or was himself reincarnated as certain later legendary persons (including Jesus), and had powers including and exceeding those ascribed to Jesus (raising the dead, calling fire down from the sky, causing storms, incapacitating demons). He's also sometimes equated with a particular (named) angel or called by the honorific title "angel of the Covenant". Whereas Enoch is supposed to have ascended riding a horse or chariot, Elijah ascended riding a "whirlwind".

Jens
2007-Jul-06, 01:34 AM
In any case, as was mentioned above, even Mary wouldn't be a good counterexample, because she didn't live forever -- or at least, not yet. Even if we had empirical evidence, say an expedition to heaven, we wouldn't know if she were truly immortal until she had lived forever.

Noclevername
2007-Jul-06, 03:59 AM
Jesus was also taken straight to Heaven...


Well, he died first, and that's what the stat in question is for; to measure who died. What they do after that is not statistically signifigant. ;)

sarongsong
2007-Jul-06, 05:19 AM
Hey, let's ask...
Immortal Man
Entry (v. 11, p. 2) in Who's Who : the Definitive Directory of the DC Universe
(New York : DC Comics, 1984-1987)...
MSU (http://www.lib.msu.edu/comics/rri/irri/imb.htm)...oops, nevermind.

Lurker
2007-Jul-07, 07:10 PM
Jesus was also taken straight to Heaven...

...and anyway, regardless of those two, the Old Testament tells of one or two men being taken straight up long before, although in one case it's a matter of interpretation of verses which a few have interpretted otherwise. That would be Enoch in Genesis 5:22-29, father of Methuselah (the man who lived the longest human life ever, at 969 years) and great-grandfather of Noah (apparently somewhat of a "survivor" himself :D). The interpretation that he did in fact ascend without death is canonized in Hebrews 11:5 which says so much more unambiguously. The other guy is Elijah, a prophet who has several more references in the Bible and is associated with a bunch of other extra-Biblical ideas such as that he had returned to Earth and was present at the Crucifixion, would return to Earth before Jesus (to Christians) or the true Messiah (to Jews) does at some future date, was a reincarnation of certain previous legendary person or persons and/or was himself reincarnated as certain later legendary persons (including Jesus), and had powers including and exceeding those ascribed to Jesus (raising the dead, calling fire down from the sky, causing storms, incapacitating demons). He's also sometimes equated with a particular (named) angel or called by the honorific title "angel of the Covenant". Whereas Enoch is supposed to have ascended riding a horse or chariot, Elijah ascended riding a "whirlwind".
Yeah... well... there are other religions that have their stories too. The sticking point is the evidence... :)