500
i read in the chronicle, that a UCSF biologist has altered a gene {daf-2} which has thusly resulted in extending the life span of a worm {caenorhabiditis elegans} from an average of 2 weeks, to and average of 12. "the latest example of life extension the scientists conferred on their roundworms is the equivalent of humans living healthy and active lives for 500 years...although scientists have used other techniques to extend the life spans of other organisms, Kenyon said her group's most recent efforts have acheived the longest extension of average life span on record. equally important, the worms remained active and even 'frisky' she said."
and yet i wonder, what does one do about the fatigue in their legs from having ridden their bike too far, when it was too hot, and slept too little over the weekend? perhaps there just seems to be a lack of time, as is often the case. turning the clocks back always makes me feel like i've gained something, as purely psychological as it is. perhaps i need to read jitterbug perfume again. oh these lives of our with all of their choices. some people go to antarctica to study peguins, others play guitar, others plant trees in yards, others go shopping for people too rich or lazy or ? to do it themselves.
500 years, sure would give us the possibility to do just about everything. i think i would like that.
Posted by jeff at October 27, 2003 01:16 PM
....................................
Only The Rich Pay Taxes
Top 50% of Wage Earners Pay 96.03% of Income Taxes
October 10, 2003
There is new data for 2001. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% fell to 33.89% from 37.42% in 2000. This is mainly because their income share (not just wages) fell from 20.81% to 17.53%. However, their average tax rate actually rose slightly from 27.45% to 27.50%.
This proves that it was not the tax cut that caused revenues from the rich to fall, but the recession and the stock market crash. In other words, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If you are going to benefit from the rich paying more taxes, due to progressivity, on the upside, you are going to lose more revenue from these people on the downside. This is a good argument for reducing progressivity.
Think of it this way: less than four dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. (The top 1% earned $293,000-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives - and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes (Down from 2000 figure: 56.47%). The top 10% pay 64.89% (Down from 2000 figure: 67.33%). The top 25% pay 82.9% (Down from 2000 figure: 84.01%). The top 50% pay 96.03% (Down from 2000 figure: 96.09%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.97% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 17.53 (2000: 20.81%) of all income. The top 5% earns 31.99 (2000: 35.30%). The top 10% earns 43.11% (2000: 46.01%); the top 25% earns 65.23% (2000: 67.15%), and the top 50% earns 86.19% (2000: 87.01%) of all the income.
The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.
Posted by: Mark Hamil at October 27, 2003 02:14 PM
500 years still doesn't seem like it would be long enough...
Posted by: irene at October 27, 2003 08:27 PM
You failed to mention (or perhaps the article failed to mention) that the worms (sic) also had thier reproductive organs removed. You can do alot of things in five hundred years but in this case, fucking isn't one of them.
Posted by: John Rensing at October 29, 2003 07:39 PM
If one can't fuck for a span of 500 years, why even live?
Posted by: Brina at October 30, 2003 07:57 AM
Who would want to fuck a worm anyway? I mean, I've been desperate before but come on people! Worm fucking?
I am reminded of a t-shirt I once had, from Cal Poly:
CAL POLY: OK!
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: NO WAY!
STICK TO YOUR OWN RACE--THE HUMAN RACE!
Posted by: Christian Kiefer at November 3, 2003 02:38 PM
yes, i suppose it could be mechanically challenging to fuck a worm. but luckily, i'm referring to human-to-human activity. to be deprived of expressing oneself in that manner for 500 years...i'd prefer not to exist at all.
Posted by: Brina at November 6, 2003 10:48 AM
