I’m loving being middle aged

When does middle age officially begin? Being just a few months away from my 47th birthday, I am ideally placed to give you the definitive answer: it starts when you’re about 10 years older than I am now. Or possibly 15 years.

What I can say for certain is that whatever “middle aged” is, I’m definitely not it yet. Why, just look at my Adidas Gazelles! Look at my not-grey hair! Look how much I’m liking (as they say) the Lana Del Rey album! I’m still young, I tell you. Young! Young young young young young!

(to read more, click here)

16 thoughts on “I’m loving being middle aged”

  1. For myself (54), I am in “late youth”. This appellation so impresses eighteen-year-old girls that they stare at me open-mouthed. But their fathers don’t.

    1. Come on, its an extra challenge to seduce someone who thinks they are a Lesbian. OK, some people are committed Lesbians, but as Boy George once said, sexuality is rarely black or white, there are many shades of grey.

      I once seduced a stripper, while she was at work. That was a lot of fun, sadly in the days before viagra.

  2. personally i want to be old old old old old. hot girls treated me like a kid when i was a teenager and in my twenties, even when i was wearing a false beard to look mature.

  3. “We’re the ones with sufficient perspective to appreciate, say, that if everyone were to pull a sickie just because they’ve got a hangover, the company would cease to function and everyone would lose their job.”

    This is exactly the perspective that you’re actually missing, though.

    Despite the wisdom you profess to acquire with advancing years, you display toddler-tantrum in rejecting unpleasant truths.

    “Sufficient perspective” enables people to “appreciate” that “if everyone were to” consume fossil fuels without restraint, the planet “would cease to function” to properly support our species and “everyone would lose [far more than] their job.”

    1. You have this back to front: it is precisely everyone else that is the problem, while we’re the ones killing ourselves to reach targets that others are not, even though our hitting the targets means damn all since we’re not polluting significantly (as compared to China, USA, Russia, etc.). Two problems:

      (1) Pollution is exaggerated. This is Delingpole’s whole point, you idiot. The earth has had far higher rates of natural climate change after each ice age ended in the past, without problem. Species naturally go extinct, it’s part of evolution. Why should we interfere? Yes, we should decode the DNA of polar bears and mosquitoes so Noah can one day resurrect them, along with dinosaurs and dodos, to help find a new treatment for cancer, but you’re an inhuman fascist if you put them above human life.

      (2) Your “head in the sand” argument is like the disarmers like Stanley Baldwin in the 1930s: if Britain sets a lead, then everyone else will follow. Didn’t work. It was obvious to Churchill it wouldn’t. Nobody will copy “our example” unless it pays them to do so, which will happen automatically when fossil fuels become relatively uneconomic as compared to nuclear and other clean options, which has nothing to do with Al Gore or AGW propaganda liars.

      Hope this helps to straighten out your mean delusional rubbish.

      1. You’re engaging in a completely separate debate, Nige Cook.

        You’re talking about the ‘futility’ of Britain trying to set a lead.

        That may or may not be futile, but I’m simply talking about whether a pollution problem *exists*, never mind who’s in a position to set a lead in solving it.

        It seems the strength of your feelings (“idiot”, “liars”, “fascist”, “delusional”) has somewhat swamped your ability to think clearly. The hyperbolic language of yours that I quote weakens, doesn’t strengthen, your ‘argument’ – inverted commas because, like Delingpole, it’s more like a toddler tantrum than rational argument.

        In your haste to berate rather than think things through properly, you’ve also enunciated a glaring contradiction: in your first para you suggest that China and America are “the problem”, because their carbon omissions dwarf ours (UK); but then in your second para you suggest that those massive emissions are not a problem anyway.

        It’s necessary to decode your gibberish to glean your actual position on this issue, which is: contrary to the vast majority of scientists (climate and other), you don’t believe human carbon emissions pose a problem for human survival; but even if they do, we (UK) shouldn’t bother amending our behaviour because we hardly emit any carbon anyway compared to others (e.g. China, America).

        This position (of Delingpole and yourself) is a toddler tantrum because it’s like a parent trying to take sweets away from her child, saying, “That’s enough. You can’t keep consuming like that because you’ll harm yourself.”

        The toddler reacts with a tantrum because consumption feels good, life is great like this, and he doesn’t want to change.

        Moreover, when the parent reprimands the toddler for polluting the environment by simply dropping sweet wrappers on the pavement, then, lacking the maturity to recognise that that is indeed wrong *in principle*, he screams “But what about him over there!” – someone who has merrily dropped much bigger litter (chicken take-away box, say).

        And this is the irony of this piece by Delingpole: he talks about ageing and wisdom, but his (and your) whole mentality is that of a toddler – too infantile to accept unpleasant truths that would require restraint in their consumerist behaviour.

          1. “You want to impose constraints on our lifestyle.”

            Yep, that’s absolutely correct – because I (and all rational people) would prefer a constraint on my lifestyle to a collapse in my lifestyle. For example, I would prefer to drive my car 10% less than to give up driving completely.

            Consider fish consumption. There is no scientist who disagrees that the ocean’s fish stock is collapsing due to over-consumption (there aren’t even any scientists disputing this through their prostitution to the fishing industry, as happens with the whores paid by the fossil and nuclear industries). I would prefer to eat more anchovy and less tuna rather than forgo tuna completely.

            Monbiot is completely wrong about nuclear power. It seems he’s adopting that position merely to give himself a more saleable ‘agent provocateur’ image in the media – helps boost one’s audience.

            But let’s suppose he’s right. Even then there is a consumption problem because it will take at least a decade for any new nuclear stations to make any significant contribution to the grid. In the meantime we would have to reduce consumption to avoid a gulf between supply and demand.

            Seems you’re another toddler who throws a tantrum at hearing the word ‘no’.

          2. “all rational people would prefer a constraint rather than a collapse”.

            Of course this would be true, if there was any need for constraint.

            Scarcity of fish – you would impose a constraint on consumption, to protect supply. I would encourage the creation of new fish farms.

            We moved from being hunter gatherers to farmers for a good reason – most of us want to solve problems, rather than simply accept them, or use them as a handy excuse for self flagellation.

            As for the nuclear issue, you say Monbiot is wrong? So far, not one single person has died because of Fukishima (except maybe the guy who had a heart attack). An unimaginable Earthquake, an enormous Tsunami, and ageing, out of date plant, and the thing still doesn’t melt down. Isn’t it time you guys gave up on your unjustified “nuclear is dangerous” cant?

            As for nuclear taking a decade to come onstream, how can an extra decade of British CO2 consumption possibly matter? We produce 1.5% of the world’s CO2, and any rational plan to reduce it would at most cut 10% or so off our consumption, so we would produce 1.35% of the world’s CO2, at horrible cost, and terrible consequences for old people, and others who cannot afford high priced heating.

            Given that at most the world CO2 levels are rising by 5ppm / decade, the sacrifice you propose would save 0.15% of 5ppm, or 0.0075ppm, over a decade.

            A decade of full, unrestricted British CO2 production would make no measurable difference to global CO2 levels, even if you are right.

            Meanwhile, China is opening two new coal powered stations every week. The dictators in China, unlike the Eurocrats, appreciate that if you mistreat the peasants too long, they rise up and destroy you.

          3. In a way, there is not really any debate here – between greens and capitalists.

            It’s really just about the perspective one adopts.

            Your perspective is that humanity always has, and therefore always will, manage to employ new technology to solve any new supply problem that arises. You argue that: with respect to fish, the technology of fish-farming will work; and with respect to energy, nuclear power can solve the supply problem.

            The green perspective is to concede that science/technology has indeed empowered us in the past, but now we are at an unprecedented moment in human history where we have reached the limits of the biosphere’s capacity to absorb our environmental impacts.

            The merit of the Green perspective is that it is consistently based on science.

            The demerit of Delingpole’s position (which I’m not quite sure whether you, Eworrall, share) is that he is inconsistent in his attitude to science: he accepts science when it says pleasant things (e.g. more powerful gadgets, plentiful energy, more food production), but rejects it when it says unpleasant things (e.g. AGW, consumption must be reduced).

            You have started debating along scientific lines by talking about CO2 concentrations. I personally don’t wish to go there because I prefer to leave the science and conclusions (e.g. we must cut CO2 emissions) to the scientific consensus.

            That’s what all rational people do in all areas of their lives. For example: before I drive anywhere, I don’t debate the integrity of the engineering behind the engine, roads and bridges that I will be using; I put my faith in the competence of the experts who have created that stuff; when I leave the doctor’s surgery, the most I might do is seek a second opinion *from another doctor* – I don’t seek to acquire medical expertise myself so that I can attempt to dispute the doctor’s judgements.

          4. All you need to know about Delingpole and science is his post earlier this year claiming that America was a net exporter of petroleum (!), and prating about peak oil, which he completely misunderstood. He engaged with the first one or two commentators, then was ripped to shreds by the rest and went very, very quiet. His post is still on the Spectator, for some reason.

        1. No I don’t have the time to reply to your lies, except to say that there is no contradiction between pointing out that the fact that Britain’s pollution is trivial compared to China, and the fact that there isn’t a big problem when you look at the unexaggerated facts of the temperature record, and the positive feedback H2O lie in IPCC models.

          Disentangling your polemic, your case is that Stalin (or is it Hitler?) should have exterminated everyone to make the world “clean” and “peaceful”. Your case is that humanity should be murdered to save the world from getting a bit warmer.

          What gets me angry is that you people communicate by lies, exaggerations, and scare-mongering, because you know damn well that you won’t be popular if you tell the truth. You’re pure evil.

          1. Nige Cook said: “Your case is that humanity should be murdered to save the world from getting a bit warmer.”

            You may disagree with the Green case, but your argument is not helped by misrepresenting that case.

            The Green argument can be made by simple analogy:

            In the wake of a disaster (e.g. earthquake), there will be far less food and water to go round due to the collapse in infrastructure. More people will be saved if everyone’s consumption is reduced and consumption is spread evenly, rather than everyone scrambling for as much as they can grab.

            The Green case, then, is about saving, not ‘murdering’, people.

            You should restrict your argument to your contention (fantasy) that there is no problem with supply (water, food, energy) and habitation (environmental degradation), and that the Greens are simply scaremongering.

            Even the Greens’ most ardent critics don’t grab wildly at crazy arguments that Greens desire genocide of humans.

            It seems you do concede that the world is “getting a bit warmer.” That’s what the Greens and many others (e.g. IPCC) say. The ‘scaremongering’, then, is about the *consequences* of that. It is a well-established principle of science, and indeed life generally, that small changes can have big effects.

            As I said to Eworrall, there isn’t really any debate here; it’s simply a matter of perspective, and what you choose to accept. The grown-up perspective is to take bad news on board and do something about it, e.g. reduce consumption a bit because that’s far less painful than a collapse in living-standards. The toddler perspective is to scream ‘No!’ at any suggestion that they should do without some luxury.

            I choose to accept the scientific consensus. You choose to accept the comforting denials (e.g. from Delingpole) that there are any problems that urgently need addressing.

            Moreover, Delingpole basically said on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s LBC radio show that he was indeed effectively subscribing to a massive conspiracy theory that encompassed the overwhelming majority of scientists and governments around the world.

            Thus, he displays similar delusion to you: grabbing wildly at crazy theories in a desperate attempt to give his position some coherence.

Comments are closed.