Cryogenics conversation makes age a matter of perspective

WELCOME to the Caveman Chronicles, episode one.

So this is my fortnightly column of my random thoughts and adventures that I feel are worthy of sharing with you, our faithful readers.

For example, I found myself discussing with a fellow reporter at The Observer last week the pros and cons of being cryogenically frozen and brought back to life.

Just casual breakfast discussion.

Basically, I was trying to work out what the perfect age would be to be frozen and then brought back to life sometime in the future, say, 2080 for argument's sake.

For me it was mid-20s. You can come back in the future and still be confident enough to mix it with the future humans, rather than being an 80-plus-year-old who is moving into the twilight of their lives.

(Sorry Nan, you're 99. Seriously, you've had a good innings and you're still all there, but yes, you are in the twilight of your life, unless you're a wizard and didn't tell any of us).

Arguments to my theory arrived, "50 or 60" one of my colleagues said, because you would have achieved a lot in life and still have fun when you came back in the future.

This got me wondering about how we do things now.

We look at life saying wait until you're 21, 30 - that's the prime of your life. Forty is the new 30; we've all heard them.

Every day should be the prime of our lives.

Hope you enjoyed the first instalment of Caveman Chronicles.

Don't be fooled by the love columns that also appear in here - most of us at The Observer are nut jobs and if you hated this, send a letter to the editor and I'll take a long hard look at myself.

Question of the Fortnight: Would you rather fight a horse-sized duck, or seven duck-sized horses?