Live Long Enough to Live Forever [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 10:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
cool on your wild deductive abilities, holmes! How did you know I was talking about the nutrition and not about the absurd idea of living forever using current or near-future techniques? I sure didn't!

Enjoy your pine nuts or sand or whatever, if you're pressing the nutrition angle.

But you do realise, you won't live forever? It'll just seem like it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read what I wrote? The vast majority of the book is about nutrition.

tolbiny

12-01-2005, 10:20 AM

It sounds like an interesting read, though from you exert it appears to have major flaws.
"We’ve basically doubled the expectation in the past hundred years."

We have doubled the average life expectancy, but we havn't come close to doubling the LONGEST an indivicual can live. There are accounts of Romans living into their 80's and 90's, while the oldest living person on record is around 116 (i thin). We haven't really made the "exponential" progress in the longest that an individual can live that is nessecary to be able to epect a person to live past 120 yrs. This sounds like a manipulation of figures to sell books, especially when you look at the reasons for the increase in life expectancy over the past 100 years.
1. Obstectrics- women not dying in childbirth, and children not dying during childbirth.
2. Vaccinations keeping young children alive- traditionally along with the old, the most vulnerable to infectious disiese.
As a male once you got past a certain age (arounnd 20) you average life expectancy was over 60 100 years ago (this was in england around 1900, don't have the specific figures with me, but i might be able to find the old text book they were in). The majority of technology in this area has allowed children to grow up into adults more often, something that is much moreeaily achievable than alling adults to slow down the ageing process.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 10:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Living past 120 years by just changing your diet *is* absurd. Living longer in general obviously isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you got the number 120 from, but adding 20 years to your lifespan by living a healthier life is most certainly not absurd.

samjjones

12-01-2005, 10:23 AM

To quote the great Freddy Mercury...

"Who wants to live forever?"

Esp. if all of your family/friends don't.

diebitter

12-01-2005, 10:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
cool on your wild deductive abilities, holmes! How did you know I was talking about the nutrition and not about the absurd idea of living forever using current or near-future techniques? I sure didn't!

Enjoy your pine nuts or sand or whatever, if you're pressing the nutrition angle.

But you do realise, you won't live forever? It'll just seem like it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you even read what I wrote? The vast majority of the book is about nutrition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I didn't. Once you mentioned the book as you it seemed a waste of the 4th dimension. My point initially was the book's 'bridges' bs factor.

Anyway, the live forever thing... good luck with that /images/graemlins/grin.gif

vexvelour

12-01-2005, 10:31 AM

The way I see it, I'd be happy just living through this life and dying before the planet explodes or gets super hot or whatever the hell crazy crap is going to happen.

Just make this life worthwhile.

diebitter

12-01-2005, 10:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, I'd be happy just living through this life and dying before the planet explodes or gets super hot or whatever the hell crazy crap is going to happen.

Just make this life worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]
First prize! Give her a cigar!

craig r

12-01-2005, 10:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Living past 120 years by just changing your diet *is* absurd. Living longer in general obviously isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you got the number 120 from, but adding 20 years to your lifespan by living a healthier life is most certainly not absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

That I would agree with. Yeah, I know, someone will post about their 90 year old grandfather who drank every day and smoked 2 packs of Chesterfields, but that is not the norm. The big problem is not just diet, but stress, and environment/water. These are things that we don't know the long term effects over yet.

But, by eating healthy you increase your chances of living longer. I don't even think that is debatable. But, there are a lot outside factors that are beyond our control. I also don't think "quantity" of life is the most important area to look at as well. By eating healthier, you will probably have a better quality life physically and mentally.

craig

Mr_J

12-01-2005, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like an interesting read, though from you exert it appears to have major flaws.
"We’ve basically doubled the expectation in the past hundred years."

We have doubled the average life expectancy, but we havn't come close to doubling the LONGEST an indivicual can live. There are accounts of Romans living into their 80's and 90's, while the oldest living person on record is around 116 (i thin). We haven't really made the "exponential" progress in the longest that an individual can live that is nessecary to be able to epect a person to live past 120 yrs. This sounds like a manipulation of figures to sell books, especially when you look at the reasons for the increase in life expectancy over the past 100 years.
1. Obstectrics- women not dying in childbirth, and children not dying during childbirth.
2. Vaccinations keeping young children alive- traditionally along with the old, the most vulnerable to infectious disiese.
As a male once you got past a certain age (arounnd 20) you average life expectancy was over 60 100 years ago (this was in england around 1900, don't have the specific figures with me, but i might be able to find the old text book they were in). The majority of technology in this area has allowed children to grow up into adults more often, something that is much moreeaily achievable than alling adults to slow down the ageing process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. However, with the scientific progress we're making, I'm sure we'll be able to get that up quite a bit. I think the past has mainly dealt with giving more people a long life expectancy, where as we're finally getting to the stage where we can push the max life expectancy higher.

I'd be very surprised if the healthy people of my generation don't live to see 2100, and it wouldn't surprise me if we crack 200 years old.

But none of this really matters unless they can slow the aging process. What the use of living so long if you don't have the body to enjoy it??

thatpfunk

12-01-2005, 10:45 AM

I think this brings up an interesting question:

Let imagine that life expectancy has jumped up to something that we would consider astronomical (300-800 years or something).

Now, would this make dying young more tragic? Would it change the risks you might take? For some reason I feel like dying at 18 or 25 is infinetly more dumb if your lifespan is 300+ rather than 80.

BradleyT

12-01-2005, 10:55 AM

ZJ,

Is adding 20 years really worth anything? I suggest you visit a nursing home some time and see what being "old" is really about.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 11:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ZJ,

Is adding 20 years really worth anything? I suggest you visit a nursing home some time and see what being "old" is really about.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try not to think of it as tacking an extra 20 years on at the end. Think of it as slowing down the aging process by the equivelent.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 11:03 AM

I don't want people to get tangled up over the title. It's simply something intriguing that will sell lots of copies.

No where in the book does the author state humans will live forever. Try not to take the word literally.

Perhaps a more accurate title would be: Live long enough to see a time when people no longer die of old age, cancer, or organ failure

diebitter

12-01-2005, 11:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]

No where in the book does the author state humans will live forever. Try not to take the word literally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except the title!

I hate misleading titles for books/films/songs /images/graemlins/mad.gif

These grind my gears:

The Never Ending Story
The Sound of Silence
Krakatoa, East of Java (check a world map)
Diamonds are Forever

grrrrr!

thatpfunk

12-01-2005, 11:09 AM

bitter,

how is the neverending story decieving? You are watching a movie that contains a story. the story in the movie is neverending. if it was called the neverending movie then you would have a gripe.

be healthy,
funk

samjjones

12-01-2005, 11:10 AM

It all depends on what the book states as the Third Bridge. Because the fundamental problem is that the body's cells simply break down at a certain point of age, regardless of how "healthy" you are otherwise. If nanotechnology could prevent this from happening at a molecular level, then at least theoretically, it would be possible help retard the aging process in individual cells.

tolbiny

12-01-2005, 11:10 AM

Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatent case of false advertisng since my lawsuit against the film "The Never Ending Story".

1C5

12-01-2005, 11:12 AM

Cool. will get it for my mom's Christmas present.

diebitter

12-01-2005, 11:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
bitter,

how is the neverending story decieving? You are watching a movie that contains a story. the story in the movie is neverending. if it was called the neverending movie then you would have a gripe.

be healthy,
funk

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, you have swayed me through good argument and sound logic. I was wrong. I now remove this from my list, and replace it with 'I am a rock'.

tolbiny

12-01-2005, 11:16 AM

[censored] you buddy, simon and garfunkle rules.

craig r

12-01-2005, 11:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] you buddy, simon and garfunkel rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

diebitter

12-01-2005, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] you buddy, simon and garfunkle rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

course they do. I'm not dissing them, but they are neither rocks nor silent. You see my point? false advertising.

(though I do have a soft spot to the alternative act Cylon and Garfunkel (http://erotic-sludge.truff.net/funneh/cylon%20garfunkel%20signed.JPG))

imitation

12-01-2005, 11:18 AM

Fairly intense bouts of starvation has been proven to stress the organs in such a way that they can last longer. However you must realise that a prolonged life does not neccesarily equate to a longer quality of life.

Voltron87

12-01-2005, 11:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you are still skeptical, this book is a must read for any rational human being.

[/ QUOTE ]

no offense, but your blog post does a really bad job of convincing me of this point.

I'm sure a lot of the actual health advice content is basically correct, but I'm also sure that its nothing you cant find in other places and is nothing revolutionary. but this live 400 years Bridge XVII crap is BS.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you believe the author is flat out lying about what we can do today, it’s pretty hard to deny that some amazing stuff is going to happen in the near future. Those excerpts on Bridges Two and Three should only serve as motivation for you to concentrate on Bridge One.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just read what you wrote. It's insane.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 11:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just read what you wrote. It's insane.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm defending something you haven't read yet. Read it and perhaps my confidence will make more sense. Again, this is all assuming that he's not directly lying to the reader.

12-01-2005, 11:35 AM

There was an article in popular mechanics earlier this year talking about the thechnology to expand life. They predicted that todays teenagers will live to an average of 120 years old. 80 year olds would have similar fitness to todays 50 year olds.

Voltron87

12-01-2005, 11:37 AM

no, I'm commenting on something I read in your blog, not the book. this:

" Those excerpts on Bridges Two and Three should only serve as motivation for you to concentrate on Bridge One. "

that, and the stuff around it, sounds crazy.

like i said, im sure most of the health content is correct and isnt made up or anything, but the stuff about bridges, nanotechnology being just around the corner and living 5000 years is really nuts. it looks like the books authors are either delusional, or they did chose to hype the [censored] out of some basic health advice to get 10 minutes of attention. im reading some other reviews on other sites and none of their advice is revolutionary or anything.

JihadOnTheRiver

12-01-2005, 11:37 AM

Are you a Scientologist?

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 11:43 AM

The 5,000 year quote was not said by the authors, nor did I defend the validity of that number. In fact, I referred to it as crazy in my blog.

[ QUOTE ]
it looks like the books authors are either delusional, or they did chose to hype the [censored] out of some basic health advice to get 10 minutes of attention. im reading some other reviews on other sites and none of their advice is revolutionary or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying it's off the wall bonkers, and then you go to say that none of the ideas in the book are revolutionary? Those criticisms can't coexist.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 11:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a Scientologist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to think of myself as a pediatric gynecologist.

MaxPower

12-01-2005, 11:48 AM

I don't think you are crazy, but I'm sure the claims of this book are overblown.

If this stuff happens, it will not happen as fast as the authors predict and by that time, mother nature will find another way to kill us off.

These predictions are almost always wrong. I remember reading an article about 12 years ago that said that in 10 years baldiness would be cured. I'm still waiting for that and for my flying car.

By all means take care of yourself to increase the quality of your life now and in your old age, that only makes sense.

JihadOnTheRiver

12-01-2005, 11:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you a Scientologist?

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer to think of myself as a pediatric gynecologist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two thumbs down.

Voltron87

12-01-2005, 11:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The 5,000 year quote was not said by the authors, nor did I defend the validity of that number. In fact, I referred to it as crazy in my blog.

[ QUOTE ]
it looks like the books authors are either delusional, or they did chose to hype the [censored] out of some basic health advice to get 10 minutes of attention. im reading some other reviews on other sites and none of their advice is revolutionary or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying it's off the wall bonkers, and then you go to say that none of the ideas in the book are revolutionary? Those criticisms can't coexist.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, thats obviously not what im saying. im saying their health advice doesnt look revolutionary, but their predictions about the future are bonkers. do you understand the distinction?

JihadOnTheRiver

12-01-2005, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
no, thats obviously not what im saying. im saying their health advice doesnt look revolutionary, but their predictions about the future are bonkers. do you understand the distinction?

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with you V. These kind of books and philosophies pray on unstable, ignorant patronage (not saying ZJ is one of them, just that's there market). This stuff is just another morph of a billion crazy ass bastards from many years past.

I believe that most people that really put thought into it will say that they have absolutely no desire to live to...ummm...what was it...5000 years old?

KaneKungFu123

12-01-2005, 11:54 AM

you look too cool to be talking about eating healthy.

next time just say "live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Living past 120 years by just changing your diet *is* absurd. Living longer in general obviously isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you got the number 120 from, but adding 20 years to your lifespan by living a healthier life is most certainly not absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

That I would agree with. Yeah, I know, someone will post about their 90 year old grandfather who drank every day and smoked 2 packs of Chesterfields, but that is not the norm. The big problem is not just diet, but stress, and environment/water. These are things that we don't know the long term effects over yet.

But, by eating healthy you increase your chances of living longer. I don't even think that is debatable. But, there are a lot outside factors that are beyond our control. I also don't think "quantity" of life is the most important area to look at as well. By eating healthier, you will probably have a better quality life physically and mentally.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 11:56 AM

I guess it was a mistake to use the 5,000 year quote in my post. Again, I want to stress that quote is not from the authors. In my post, I did not write about any of their predictions. I wrote their intro to bridge 2 and bridge 3 ideas, but as I have already said, most of the stuff they write about these bridges is about technologies that already exist.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
These kind of books and philosophies pray on unstable, ignorant patronage

[/ QUOTE ]

Do some research on Ray Kurzweil. He developed the first print to speach reading machine for the blind, designed the Kurzweil keyboard, and had a great number of other contributions to the AI field that already exist.

His past books including the age of intelligent machines have made some bold predictions that have already come true.

You make it sound like this guy is running a paid programming add on comedy central at 4am.

JihadOnTheRiver

12-01-2005, 12:00 PM

You are WAYYYY too bright of a kid for this stuff ZJ.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 12:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are WAYYYY too bright of a kid for this stuff ZJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what I said that was so absurd.

I never said that the human life span will be 5,000 years, nor did I imply that the authors said it. And for the 192431209312th time, the word forever is not meant to be taken literally. It's a catchy title.

What specific concept is so absurd?

thatpfunk

12-01-2005, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are WAYYYY too bright of a kid for this stuff ZJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, WTF are you talking about? He is too bright to believe that our life expectency is going up and putting healthy things into your body is the foundation to living a longer life?

You sound like an idiot constantly disagreeing with something that you have not done any research on.

Thebram

12-01-2005, 12:08 PM

Internet use policy restricts access to this web page.

Reason:
The Websense category "Gambling" is filtered.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URL:
http://www.zeejustin.com/journal.php?journal_id=61

diebitter

12-01-2005, 12:10 PM

I guess the problem I have is is that's the living a very long time stuff is tosh (more kindly put: wild speculation).

It also caters specifically to the ignorant who might wanna live a long time, cos they're scared of dying. - It is therefore an exploitative work.

I have the same problem with diet boooks that claim to do this and that, but don't really deliver, because they offer programs that are short-term and not sustainable. (But good exercise and nutrition books are fine!)

Okay, diet, excercise and moderation do promote longer life generally, but selling a nutrition+ book which promises the possibility of living forever, as the title does whatever you may say, is snake oil.

MikeSmith

12-01-2005, 12:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Live Long Enough to Live Forever (http://www.zeejustin.com/journal.php?journal_id=61)

This is the first blog I've written with no poker content that I think can have a profound impact on some of the readers. I really hope some of you will take the suggestion and read the book in question.

Anyway, I'd love comments from people that think I'm crazy, or people that have read the book already.
-ZJ

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal theory is no matter how long someonee lives they will run into cancer or alzheimers eventually. You may live 5000 years but you will be a vegetable for the majority of it. Brains just arent built to work optimally for the long run.

If everyone did live 5000 years that means that there will significantly more births than deaths leading to an overpopulation leading to shortage in food etc. Most likely leading to an all out war(according to Malthus), look at what an oil shortage is doing today.

craig r

12-01-2005, 12:16 PM

Just discussing what I know, not what I do.

But, thank you for the compliment. I promise if I "look cool", it is only a look. I am actually a big dork.

craig

[ QUOTE ]
you look too cool to be talking about eating healthy.

next time just say "live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Living past 120 years by just changing your diet *is* absurd. Living longer in general obviously isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure where you got the number 120 from, but adding 20 years to your lifespan by living a healthier life is most certainly not absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

That I would agree with. Yeah, I know, someone will post about their 90 year old grandfather who drank every day and smoked 2 packs of Chesterfields, but that is not the norm. The big problem is not just diet, but stress, and environment/water. These are things that we don't know the long term effects over yet.

But, by eating healthy you increase your chances of living longer. I don't even think that is debatable. But, there are a lot outside factors that are beyond our control. I also don't think "quantity" of life is the most important area to look at as well. By eating healthier, you will probably have a better quality life physically and mentally.

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 12:19 PM

Diebitter, the title is misleading. I'll give you that, but I don't think I agree with any of your other points.

If you think this book is written to cater to the ignorant, you need to give the book a read and I think you will wholeheartily change your opinion. It's not exactly written on a 3rd grade reading level.

If you believe that the trend of life extension that has ocurred over the past 100 years, then you are the one making bold claims. To me this is just obvious, but I suppose it's up for debate.

I don't know what your point is about short-term unsustainable diets. This book recommends making lifestyle changes, and plainly discouarages short-term diets, especially for weight loss.

MonkeeMan

12-01-2005, 12:19 PM

The next world war will reduce the average life expectancy to mere minutes.

Personally, years ago I decided I'd rather die 2 years earlier than live the rest of my life eating like a Chinese peasant. And I like rice.

diebitter

12-01-2005, 12:26 PM

I believe you actually. I realised my mistake once you pointed out Ray Kurzweil was coauthor. I have a research background in AI (but out of the field for the last 10), so that came as a bolt. I didn't register it first time I looked at the blog.

It really isn't my cup of tea, and as I sent the 'snake oil' thing, I got to thinking it might be an academic rather than populist work? or is it populist? If populist, I still would call 'snake oil' till I actually see it myself.

Anyway, I'm holding back the ragging - I was thrown by your tree-hugging '4th dimension phrase' early on (which I liked, but marked you as 'flake' in my head) - cos I could be wrong.

You and me are cool. Let's go bowling some time.

Goonga Galoonga

craig r

12-01-2005, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
f you believe that the trend of life extension that has ocurred over the past 100 years, then you are the one making bold claims. To me this is just obvious, but I suppose it's up for debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Life extensions for who? A lot of the world has an unbelievably low death age. And not from wars either. The cause can be from water problems, lack of food, too much concentration of wealth, etc... (I don't want to turn this into something political). But, there are diseases people are dying from now, even in the U.S., that could possibly be preventable. No one knows how bad pollution really is for us. But, it is not profitable to try to stop pollution (for example).

So, I do agree with you, that if you eat better, exercise, and relax (I don't know if you mentioned that) you will proably live longer and have a better quality of life. But, just by eating well, you don't guarantee anything, because so many other factors play into life expectancy. Also, if one major epidepic takes place, the average life expectancy can drop considerably. If we factor in the average lifespan of a male adult how much bigger are the numbers if we take into account only western countries as oppossed to western countries and africa?

craig

KaneKungFu123

12-01-2005, 12:36 PM

i think that people should have enough self respect that they dont get obesse.

thatpfunk

12-01-2005, 12:54 PM

i would imagine that this is for 1st world countries specifically

Alobar

12-01-2005, 01:44 PM

I havent read the book, so I cant be to critical, but Im very "meh" about it just from the blurbs in your blog. I get annoyed when books of this nature try and make claims sound bigger than they are, especially when its obviously a good claim anyway. Like the whole "a centruy ago life expectancy was 40 years, and its almost doubled since then". uhm, no it wasnt. Life expectancy was over 50 a century ago and its only gone up a a little more than 50% since then, you can find that out easily on-line. Why stretch the truth to make it sound better, when the cocnept is still very real and worth mentioning (the fact that there has been a huge jump in the last century), just makes me call into question everything else they would have to say.

bottom line is still the same tho, nutrition is incredibly important. There have been tons of studies that show that a low calorie diet will add many years to your life. Thats well and good, but Ill take 10 years less to my life to be able to do the things I enjoy doing and make me feel alive, rather than sacrifice all that so I can be around this planet a little longer. I eat healthy and I exercise, and thats better than not, and thats good enough for me.

I do believe tho that some day sience will have a "cure" for death, and that barring some accident we will all have the potential to actually live for ever (I actually think its a no brainer that this will happen given that we keep progressing in sceince the way we are). The world will be an interesting place when that happens, as all sorts of interesting things come into play then. Ill be dead by then tho /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Thebram

12-01-2005, 01:57 PM

I'm not obesse.
But I have gained more weight this year than and single year since I was 17. But how could you know that?

Are you stalking me?

gamblore99

12-01-2005, 02:31 PM

Didn't read all the replies, but from what you wrote in your blog I gather it has some good diet advice. The changes you made to your lifestyle all look good, but are the kind of changes found in hundreds of diet books and magazines. As far as increasing life expectancy and living to 200-300, that is not going to happen. Medical technology is rapidly advancing, but breakthroughs that will allow for living this long may never come. The human body isn't meant to live that long, as one poster pointed out the average life expectantcy has increased, but maximum life span has only increased slightly. If this medical technology does come we will all be very old and unlikely to gain the real benefits from them, as our bodies will have already degraded extensively.

One thing that really stuck out was in your journal article you mentioned something like "many diseases are curable by basic vitamins, but pharmaceutical companies don't want you to know about them" (not an exact quote). This is utterly ridiculous and in the same league as accusing Part Poker of being rigged. The medical proffession does spend a large amount of time focusing on diet and nutrition (look at diabetes, crohn's disease just to name two that come to mind). The medical industry may focus a lot more on drugs and downplay nutrition but popping some vitamins is definitely not going to cure these or any other disease.

In summary it looks like a healthy living book with some sci-fi hooie put in for excitement. I haven't read it so I can't say for sure, but I think it grossly overestimates the effects of medical technology from what I have read on your journal article.

Ulysses

12-01-2005, 03:32 PM

ZeeJustin,

Have you seen the movie Highlander? Living forever has its downsides as well, largely emotional in nature.

There can only be one,
El Diablo

augie00

12-01-2005, 03:36 PM

man this thread sux.

Shajen

12-01-2005, 03:53 PM

Diablo,

What do you make of the fact that there were often 5 or 6?

djj6835

12-01-2005, 03:56 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I always thought the main thing that limits our life expectancy is simply the fact that we breathe and live in an ogygen rich environment. Oxygen is fairly corrosive and causes our bodies to deteriorate at a faster rate than they would in other elements. I think I remember reading somewhere that if we breathed helium instead of oxyen, our average life expectancy would be about 250 years.

Ulysses

12-01-2005, 04:01 PM

Shajen,

There can only be one in the end. They start out with a lot and fight until there is only one, who gets The Prize.

Have a good lunch,
El Diablo

MonkeeMan

12-01-2005, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think I remember reading somewhere that if we breathed helium instead of oxyen, our average life expectancy would be about 250 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we would sound like chipmunks when talking.

diebitter

12-01-2005, 04:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I remember reading somewhere that if we breathed helium instead of oxyen, our average life expectancy would be about 250 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

And we would sound like chipmunks when talking.

[/ QUOTE ]

plus there's no way a biology could have evolved or even started that could be based on an inert gas. Or maybe I'm being Mr Picky.

phage

12-01-2005, 04:39 PM

For insight into extended lifespan read some of the articles written by Cynthia Kenyon LINK (http://www.ucsf.edu/cklab/Kenyonintro.html)

GuyOnTilt

12-01-2005, 07:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, believing any of this tosh is a waste of the 4th dimension. And it's place on your bookshelf is a waste of the other three.

IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Eating healthy is a smart move, and making a big effort to do so is admirable esp given how much effort it takes under current American conditions. As for the secondary point of the book, the curing of aging (senescence actually, but aging's become the commonly used term) is something that is very doable and very possibly within our generation's grasp. Do some reading on senescence, what it truly is biologically, how there's a lack of it in some species already in our ecosystem, and then go do some reading on current research aimed at reaching such a state in the human species (Methuselah Mouse is the most public and a good place to start). This would be a good start although the very near possibilities extend much further, for as ZJ pointed out nano-tech and other bio or AI technology could possibly give us the ability to go far, far beyond what a natural lack of senescence would acccomplish. If you don't want to read up on any of that that's fine, but if you are going to be ignorant re: the subject then don't be so pompous as to tell others these things are "a waste".

GoT

diebitter

12-01-2005, 07:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, believing any of this tosh is a waste of the 4th dimension. And it's place on your bookshelf is a waste of the other three.

IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]
Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about....

If you don't want to read up on any of that that's fine, but if you are going to be ignorant re: the subject then don't be so pompous as to tell others these things are "a waste".

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I read the first part of the blog, and then saw the OP's comment 'You have to think in the 4th dimension!' - which raised a 'flake' alert.

However, if you'd have read a bit of the discussion, you'd have noticed I had no problem with good nutrition, but it was the rest that I found whacky - and if the book's for popular consumption, it's pretty much a selling angle AFAIC. I also later acknowledged I could be wrong here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4073598). Fair enough?

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 08:43 PM

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 08:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ZeeJustin,

Have you seen the movie Highlander? Living forever has its downsides as well, largely emotional in nature.

There can only be one,
El Diablo

[/ QUOTE ]

It's been a while since I've seen that movie, but they could always just cut their heads off if they didn't want to live anymore, right?

Suicide should always be an option.

ZeeJustin

12-01-2005, 08:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The human body isn't meant to live that long,

[/ QUOTE ]

You could argue that our bodies won't be 100% human anymore. We already have prosthetic limbs. Prosthetic organs aren't that far off.

Also, we will be able to altar our own DNA and how it is carried out. We have already done this in other animals, and have significant impacts on them including altering worms and mice to live the equivelent of almost 200 human years. Eventually we'll be able to use this technology on humans.

It sounds like aging is the process that you can't get past. Aging is a process that occurs in our cells as a result of our human DNA code. We are already able to altar our own DNA, although it will be decades before we perfect this science, but when we can, some serious [censored] will happen.

craig r

12-01-2005, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that really stuck out was in your journal article you mentioned something like "many diseases are curable by basic vitamins, but pharmaceutical companies don't want you to know about them" (not an exact quote). This is utterly ridiculous and in the same league as accusing Part Poker of being rigged

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this not believable. The pharmaceutical industry is humongous. There are natural things one can take that will get rid of certain ailments just as good and possibly safer than a prescription medicine. Even things for emotional problems sometimes work better and are not as addictive. Kava Kava is much safer and less addictive than Benzos and works almost as well. I am not saying that there are "herbal" or vitamin remedies for everything that prescription drugs offer, but it is in the pharmacies best interest to push its own product, rather than a cheaper and safer substitute when one is available. People with mild Bipolar Disorder II are told to try flax seed oil (has a very large concentration of Omega 3's) before trying prescription mood stablizers. And it is successful in some cases. And it is definitely much safer.

I just think it is naive to think that a business would not want you to know about its competitors. The pharmaceutical industry is no different than most other industries; it is designed to make a profit.

craig

Alobar

12-01-2005, 09:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]

There are natural things one can take that will get rid of certain ailments just as good and possibly safer than a prescription medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definitely isnt the norm

[ QUOTE ]

People with mild Bipolar Disorder II are told to try flax seed oil (has a very large concentration of Omega 3's) before trying prescription mood stablizers.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh, looks like the drug companies arent stopping the spread of information after all. Which is important to note, drug companies arent the one prescribing you the drugs, they cant prescrive you drugs.

you are right, its in their best interest for everyone to not take vitamins and all get sick, but the system is set up as such that thats not really how it works. This is just a giant conspiracy theory that has no merit, but gets tossed around cuz everyone loves conspiracy theories

craig r

12-01-2005, 09:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are natural things one can take that will get rid of certain ailments just as good and possibly safer than a prescription medicine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definitely isnt the norm

[ QUOTE ]

People with mild Bipolar Disorder II are told to try flax seed oil (has a very large concentration of Omega 3's) before trying prescription mood stablizers.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh, looks like the drug companies arent stopping the spread of information after all. Which is important to note, drug companies arent the one prescribing you the drugs, they cant prescrive you drugs.

you are right, its in their best interest for everyone to not take vitamins and all get sick, but the system is set up as such that thats not really how it works. This is just a giant conspiracy theory that has no merit, but gets tossed around cuz everyone loves conspiracy theories

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying it is a "conspiracy". Is it a conspiracy that drug companies visit doctors and tell them the benefits of their drug in order for them to push it? Drug companies meet with private practices all the time. They leave free samples. Why would they do this?

I don't just think it is the drug companies that are responsible for the "pushing", but the doctors as well. There are doctors that will try other treatments before prescribing medicine. These Dr's are rare, but they do exist. I have very bad anxiety attacks. I have only had one doctor not give me a benzo for them. Xanex is great, but the rebound affect is horrible. Plus, it is highly addictive and one builds tolerance very quickly. This doctor told me to at least "fast walk" 30 minutes a day, take Kava Kava if necessary, and taught me simple breathing exercises. Did it work as well as Xanex? No. But, it helped and put me in charge instead of a highly addictive drug that causes worse stress once it wears off. It didn't need to work as well either. I don't feel this is a conspiracy, I just think the market is setup for quick fixes without thinking of possible long and short term side effects. Plus, Xanex works quickly and dependence doesn't take very long to develop.

Obviously this is just one example and I have already stated that there isn't a herbal remedy for every disease. But, to call it a conspiracy is silly. The pharmaceutical industry wants you to buy their products. They want you to think that it is the only solution, but it isn't always the only solution or the best one.

craig