Well, yes and no. I had my last child when I was over 40, and she is a healthy mother of two. I know a number of men who had children after the age of 50. Their kids are pretty grown up now and appear to be healthy and normal. This old mans sperm thing is a crock put out by women who screwed up the mating game. My wifes grandmother, mother, and herself, and our daughter all had their first child at 28. Some people age more slowly than others. Years ago we knew an older couple in their early 70's who had a teenage son. They had been turned down for adoption because they were "too old". Then she got pregnant at 53. The kid was brilliant and healthy. My mother had her first child (me) at 31, and her last at 36 (my brother, who had his last (healthy and smart)child when he was over 50). My wife and I come from long-lived people whose ovaries and sperm do not age as fast as many others. My great grandfather was born way before the civil war. My wife is 65 and she can XC ski most younger men and women into the dirt (snow?). I can just keep up with her. Her C-cup boobs easily pass the pencil test. We don't like socializing with most older people because they are devoted to their obesity, arthritis, and other ailments, which we don't suffer from.

Elline might be one of those long-lived people whose ovaries will still be quite operational at 50. But how can she prove it? Is there a medical test? If she is she would still be a good child-bearing mate for a long-lived older guy.

Youth is like a fluid that slowly settles. So a woman of a certain age may look a little old, but her breasts and vagina probably still work well. Trouble is her ovaries don't. So older women can be great sex partners, and lots of fun to be around, but if you want kids, go for the young hotties. Ben, as a pretty old man, had lots of young girlfriends. Young women are attracted to older men who are successful and still healthy. It implies good genes, which their kids will inherit.

Having just read "Climate Change in Prehistory", it is fearful to contemplate what a change in rainfall or snowfall can do to a civilization. Ancient cities with huge populations became small villages or disappeared altogether in less than a decade. If the snowfall in the headwaters of the Colorado and the snowfall in the Sierras drops significantly California will lose most of its population, as will the rest of the Southwest. It appears that we are heading for a long term drought in those areas, probably not due to mans climate manipulations. Where will they go, and what struggles will result? As usual we are living in interesting times. A lot of nukes and desalinization plants could avert the catastrophe. Let's see how fast those anti-nuke Californians change their minds. Pretty quickly I imagine, when their survival is at stake.

I'm a native of San Diego and lived in Van Nuys as a teenager. Now I live on a one-acre lot in Idaho, with water rights from the 1890's. I own a (tiny) piece of Jackson Lake Dam. I have to travel to CA occasionally on business, and to San Diego recently, where I haven't been for over 50 years. In an hour or so my wife and I will head off to a state park 75 miles North of us for a couple of hours of XC skiing. Harriman State Park has 11,000 acres of wilderness and on a Saturday there might be 100 XC skiers (and no evil snowmobilers) sharing it with us. It will take us an hour and fifteen minutes to get there. When I travel to CA and drive on the freeways and travel through the endless sprawl I am horrified. A few weeks ago we drove from LA to San Diego. I was amazed to see a few miles of what passed for country on the final legs of the trip. My business might require me to rent a condo for a year near San Diego, and I am both intrigued and horrified by having to live in CA again, even if only occasionally.

Idaho is what America was, and I can only hope that the fierce winters (which have gotten less fierce recently) keep the riff-raff out. My hopes will no doubt be dashed.

Well, this will be my last missive (missile?) on the subject. Be glad, I'm starting to bore myself, as well as many of you, no doubt. I know a lot of smart people, who are not scientifically trained. They have a hard time trying to come to grips with scientific concepts. The reason we need to be scientifically literate is that we have to promote policies that are positive and productive. Our policymakers are prone to respond to economic interests that are pernicious to the majority.

I live in a city that has the most Ph.D.'s per capita of any city in the US, so scientific literacy is rampant.

I must have gotten under your skin. Are you concerned about being classed as a liberal bullshitter?

It's true, I'm not much of a scientist, more of an inventor, but I have a scientific degree from a major technical university.