Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by caketastydelish, Jan 20, 2021.
I just want to be a pretty twink forever. I want to return to my teens.
It's a *****. I'm hoping that something can be done with stem cells. especially in regards to the disintegrating disks in my spine, but so far, nuttin'.
There are probably a number of professional athletes that do all of these things but they all have to retire due to aging, so this can't be true.
Yes, eating healthy is one of the 'obvious things'. In my essay above, 'eating kale' is a stand-in for trying to excessively fine-tune one's own health in order to buy time. Being a health nut. There are strong diminishing returns. There's no amount of fine-tuning, no amount of extra sit-ups or fruit smoothies or whatever, that will get someone over the threshold. There's the common-sense stuff, though, and that does all of the heavy lifting. If you want to do more, the science needs to come faster.
My list of disease up there is with regards to the technology curve that we need in order to cure aging. It's a combination of creating the fundamental technologies that will be modified to create new science.. Yeah, if you wanted to tackle the risks to your life, then Cardiovascular, Cancer, and Alzheimer's are the way to go. And my donations here is part of my 'self-serving' budget, the same budget I'd use to go on vacation or build my savings or pay for Amazon Prime. Charity dollars come from a separate part of my budget, which is currently vaccines and will probably be antibiotics next.
Well, and mental health research. That's the one that we under-invest in and also will relieve the most suffering next century.
The important thing is that some of my budget goes towards this research. If we disagree, but still both donate, it's not like the science pie gets smaller. What makes the science pie smaller would be my vacations or even (metaphorically) spending too much on kale.
Huntington's and CF are single-gene diseases, so any discovery is at the base of a technology tree that we will eventually need. Any disease that requires multiple alleles being tweaked necessarily benefit from learning to tweak one (or two) alleles. When a viable treatment is created, that technology will be brought into every other research project it can be.
Parkinson's Disease and T1D are specifically mostly about the death of a single (known) population of specific cells (we can tackle the later cells affected, separately). If we're going to systemically prevent many different cells from dying, it's going to be built from technologies that have learned to protect (or replace) one population.
Well, I’m way past 30 and life is good. For the most part I have paid no attention to what I ate or drank; never did any regular exercise after college. I am 5’10” and weigh about 145. I never smoked or drank to excess. I subscribe to moderation in all things. First and foremost I’d say ones genes are most important. Second would be to reduce stress and activating cortisol in your body. The sins of one’s youth will visit you later. Overdoing sports or exercise will take its toll. Too much loud music from concerts or earphones will destroy your hearing. To head off debilitating issues pay attention and after 45 or so make a point of having medical checkups. Eye tests for glaucoma, PSA tests for prostate cancer, etc. If you are lucky you will get to 75 or so still being able to do what you like to do.
And before it stops, you age too. Even Kafka aged by the time he was 40, despite looking younger than was expected for decades.
I think that virtually everyone would want to remain young.
I think that there's a selfish component to this discussion. There's also an altruistic component. Aging degrades people over the course of years and then kills 100k per day. Just compare that to coronavirus, which kills you more quickly AND much fewer people. It's just that, psychologically, we've adapted to the aging-related deaths just like we've adapted to last decades flu deaths.
Now, if your goal is to save lives with some of your spending, there are obviously superior alternatives right now. And the majority of people actually don't care*. This means that any efforts on your part have way more impact. And it's not like biological science is unsolvable - any efforts for R&D contributing to human health will create the tools (and the demand!) for the hard problems to solve.
Then there's the jealousy component. I truly feel sorry for people who see interventions on the horizon and who believe that they won't arrive in time. This is psychologically painful, and then part of the dissonance is to 'make peace' with their own condition. Some of this will express itself with spreading the idea that the condition itself should been seen as natural or acceptable. There's a needle to thread, there, because your own psychological health is essential, but the absence of the condition is going to be better than accepting the condition. See also: infant mortality, slavery, hunger, exhaustion, etc.
*Again, most people don't significantly care about targeting spending to assist those who'd most benefit. And my ability to persuade people to care is limited.
Tom Brady is the exception that disproves your rule.
How about you try it first, and if it fails, then you can proclaim it didn't work for you. I mean you were the one who said you were "obsessed beyond overstatement" with this and you'd "give up any foods" to make it happen, and so on... sounds to me that you're not really willing to change anything or give up anything and you're just making excuses "... so that's my lame excuse to get out of doing it myself."
lame No one ever scored a date with the person they like by saying "Oh, others have probably tried this and it probably didn't work for them... so it won't work for me."
Evolution selects for (in favor of) those individuals for whom death comes later in life. We have accumulated genetic susceptibility to debilitating aging and dying from multiple diseases as we get older. Modern medicine is our first real opportunity to short circuit that process, but it is fighting tens of thousands of years of evolution.
I prefer my hypothesis that evolution actually rewards death and deterioration. After all, everyone will die, and many die early, many have horrible illnesses etc.
If erasing a virus isn't an option, containment is the end.
Then why does Brady plan to retire once he turns 45 if he still loves the game and he has made it abundantly clear that he does?
Sommer is trolling
He wants to run for office, that's why.
Anyway this isn't supposed to be about Brady, its supposed to be about you. You're no Tom Brady anyway, so your question is meaningless. You're just unwilling to give up your vices and using Brady as an excuse despite claiming you were "100% serious".
In fact, I suspect that you were wanting someone to bring up Tom Brady all along because that's what you really wanted to talk about. So if you really want to talk about Brady, fine... lets talk about Brady... if not, let it go.
I'm not sure what you mean. Especially when you were the one who brought up Brady, not me. My point is giving up my vices would extend my life, but not freeze aging entirely. Because that has never worked for anyone, as far as we know.
I'm probing the "100% serious" claim that cake has been using alot lately. I want to determine whether or not its just puffery, for reference, going forward.
where do you think I'm not serious? list an example.
You're really going to pretend that when you said:
You didn't have Brady in mind? Again... If you don't want to talk about Brady, just stop talking about Brady. If you want to talk about Brady, I'm game. I admit that I was the first one who used Brady's name explicitly, but I'm giving you the opportunity to just abandon the topic of Brady if you really want to. I suspect that you don't, so let's drop the pretense.
My points are that:
1. giving up the vices would substantially slow your aging process, and are the best means available to do so;
2. you are unwilling to give up the vices, despite recognizing that they are the best means to achieve your stated goal;
3. your "100% serious" claim is puffery and should be treated as such in all cases, going forward;
4. this thread is just an elaborate attempt to get someone to bring up Tom Brady, because that's what you really want to talk about;
EDIT: Xposted - See above
Giving up the "vices" won't have to slow down aging, if you are miserable due to it.
Only solution is to actually love Big Brother.
I didn't say I wouldn't give them up. I said there is a difference between slowing aging vs freezing it entirely. It's also worth noting that you provided no scientific articles from any respectable peer reviewed journal as your source. You just said something with no source whatsoever. You were the who mentioned Brady and I was only responding to what you said.
You WON'T give them up. You won't. Zero chance. That was one of my points. Thanks for conceding it.
I mentioned Brady, as I said, because I believe that Brady is what you really want to talk about. If you would just admit that, we can abandon this abstraction ruse and discuss Brady specifically, and I may indeed take the time to look up some articles about Brady's diet and how it affects him and potentially others and such. But as long as you continue to ride the fence about what you are really talking about there's no reason for me to look up anything. You've claimed that:
I concede that Brady plans to retire at 45 and has said so explicitly. I also concede that Brady loves football. I do not concede that the reason Brady is retiring at 45 is because he believes his body has aged to the point that he can no longer play competitively at the age of 45 specifically and I challenge you to produce articles where he stated as much.
And since I know you really want to talk about Brady... and that was the whole reason you started this thread... I wish you happy hunting on your search for articles. If I fall asleep before you find them I'll take a look at them tomorrow.
Separate names with a comma.