In de ontwikkelde wereld is de levensverwachting nu gestegen tot 80 jaar voor vrouwen en 76 jaar voor mannen. Een opmerkelijk gevolg daarvan is dat twee derde van alle mensen die ooit 65 jaar zijn geworden, nú leven. Tussen haakjes, de leeftijd van 65 jaar werd ooit door Bismarck [oude Duitsland] in de 19e eeuw gekozen als de officiële pensioensgerechtigde leeftijd, toen de levensverwachting in Duitsland 48 jaar was. Men verwachtte dat slechts weinig mensen die gezegende leeftijd zouden bereiken, en ons gehele sociale contract met betrekking tot werk en pensioensystemen was ontwikkeld om te zorgen voor deze geringe hoeveelheid mensen.

A happy ending. Huh. I thought that was why we were here. Now. Five hundred years into Earth’s future. So we could start over, and live happily-ever-after. It wasn’t turning out that way, was it?

What is the use of straining after an amiable view of things, when a cynical view is most likely to be the true one?

Seeing ourselves as others see us would probably confirm our worst suspicions about them.

It's just so perfuck.

If anyone knows how fixed the Pulitzers are, it’s the editors at the Times. I was part of a New York Times team that won the Pulitzer for our coverage of global terrorism. I watched the Times rig them year after year. The Times gives a lot of money to the Columbia Journalism School, which oversees the Pulitzers. The committee in return showers the paper with Pulitzers. It may be better now. I don’t know. But when I was at the paper it was disgraceful. One year the Times war correspondent John Burns wasn’t on the short list. The editors had a fit. He not only magically appeared on a new short list but won. Most people don’t get awards because they’re great reporters, look at Thomas Friedman. They get awards because the establishment wants to validate them. I know who makes up these committees.