[Guest]

What is the leading cause of death in humans?

It's not what you think...

[akaslickster]

cancer

Is this a riddle?

Edited May 7, 2008 by akaslickster

[Guest]

if its not wat most people would think then this rules out cnacer, drugs, alcohol etc etc sooo

is it old age?

[Guest]

cancer

Is this a riddle?

Not that easy...

[Guest]

if its not wat most people would think then this rules out cnacer, drugs, alcohol etc etc sooo

is it old age?

Closer, but still no. You have to think outside the box.

[Guest]

heart stops?

[Guest]

heart stops?

Nope.

[onetruth]

Mortality...or time

[Guest]

Mortality...or time

Closer... but not exactly what I'm looking for. It is an actual thing that happens, like getting cancer.

[Guest]

lack of oxygen?

[Guest]

lack of oxygen?

Still no.

[Guest]

other humans? like war etc

death itself

[Guest]

death itself

other humans? like war etc

No, and death would be too easy.

[Guest]

The wording 'in humans' has me thinking the question refers to something dying inside of a human, instead of the human itself dying.

..I don't have an answer though, just a theory.

[onetruth]

Is this a riddle or is it trivia?

The plague? Flu? Drunk drivers? Godzilla?

[Guest]

apoptosis

[Brandonb]

nervous system shut down. the end of neurological functioning is death.

[Guest]

Lack of oxygen to the brain is the clinical definition - brain death!

We start to die from the day we are born!

lack of cell regeneration.

Unless you mean unnatural cause

heart disease

War - Government is the cause

MALARIA

INFLUENZA

PLAGUE

[Guest]

as you get older you become more tired easier and more fragile so do less and so you die of boredom =P

[Guest]

birth. mortality: 100%

[Guest]

birth. mortality: 100%

Dang! mrkent got it. I was hoping it would go a little longer before someone got it, but oh well.

If you still haven't got it, here's a hint:

It doesn't actually matter if it's humans. It is also the #1 killer of most animals.

I actually remembered this from my computer science teacher in middle school who asked us the same question.

I didn't get it then either.

[Guest]

Just for specifics:

It is simply birth. While birth leads to life, life leads to death, therefore birth leads to death. Always.

This actually was a riddle, not trivia, for all those who questioned it. It really isn't that simple.

Oh and for Lost in space, you also mentioned the correct answer (Sorry for not saying so).

[bonanova]

Just for specifics:

Oh and for Lost in space, you also mentioned the correct answer (Sorry for not saying so).

It is simply birth. While birth leads to life, life leads to death, therefore birth leads to death. Always.

This actually was a riddle, not trivia, for all those who questioned it. It really isn't that simple.

Not always. A viable fetus can die prior to birth.

That aside, this riddle might be guilty of confusing the order of events with the cause of events.

But let's play the game according to sequence:

Then wouldn't the real cause of death be [ovum-fertilizing] intercourse?

Or perhaps the [prior to intercourse] twinkle in Daddy's eye? http://brainden.com/forum/uploads/emoticons/default_wink.png' alt=';)'>

It's true but irrelevant that fertilized ova do not always lead to birth: just as it's true but irrelevant that birth does not always lead to life.

What's relevant in this sequence-oriented line of reasoning is that life is always preceded by birth; and birth is always preceded by fertilization.

We can look deeper at this reasoning and conclude that a mother's decision not to have an abortion [enabling birth] could now be thought of as a cause of death.

Don't you just hate it when logic begins to look like a pretzel? <_<

[Guest]

Haha, I see what you mean bonanova.

[onetruth]

Then wouldn't the real cause of death be [ovum-fertilizing] intercourse?

Or perhaps the [prior to intercourse] twinkle in Daddy's eye?

I was going to say conception, but I like your description better.

Although if this were a religious debate, I'd argue that sin is the cause of death. But if I went there, my post might be off topic and get deleted, so I won't.

[Guest]

Not always. A viable fetus can die prior to birth.

That aside, this riddle might be guilty of confusing the order of events with the cause of events.

But let's play the game according to sequence:

Then wouldn't the real cause of death be [ovum-fertilizing] intercourse?

Or perhaps the [prior to intercourse] twinkle in Daddy's eye? http://brainden.com/forum/uploads/emoticons/default_wink.png' alt=';)'>

It's true but irrelevant that fertilized ova do not always lead to birth: just as it's true but irrelevant that birth does not always lead to life.

What's relevant in this sequence-oriented line of reasoning is that life is always preceded by birth; and birth is always preceded by fertilization.

We can look deeper at this reasoning and conclude that a mother's decision not to have an abortion [enabling birth] could now be thought of as a cause of death.

Don't you just hate it when logic begins to look like a pretzel? <_<

Life starts when? - that's debatable!

So I may go to jail for having fertilised SIX eggs and thus caused death either before delivery or after - one lost / one terminated (unbeknown to me at that time) and four lovely kids?

Trivia - a natural occurring termination (miscarriage) is still classed medically as an abortion, just not by human intervention! - A doctor was criticised over this usage.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Lost in space