4 ms·

I'm convinced at this point that most of the conditions and diseases we associated with "old age" are actually a result of lifestyle choices, or at least aggrav

I'm convinced at this point that most of the conditions and diseases we associated with "old age" are actually a result of lifestyle choices, or at least aggravated by them. Just eat a balanced diet, get regular exercise, and maintain a healthy weight and you'll be better off than the majority.

melling 7y ago
“science progresses one funeral at a time” Many people believe things that simply aren’t true and you can’t convince them otherwise. A new generation comes along and challenges entrenched ideas and progress is made. Perhaps we can grow past this way of thinking? What does the science say about your thoughts on the subject?
- antepodius 7y ago
  How much of that effect comes about because people's brains stop being flexible due to age?
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
This is for the most part, incorrect. Please see this video of Aubrey de Grey, where he explains that those lifestyle choices you describe, while very helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long life, and have a relatively small effect at that. They can sometimes have large effect on the negative side, where if we measure effect in people in poor conditions, where they have severely bad lifestyle choices, due to malnutrition or poisoning for example, or complete lack of vitamin sources, etc. Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot. If your genes are telling you to live to 70, you will not live to 100, no matter how many cabbages you eat or how many days spend hiking in the woods. To really increase lifespan beyond that we need actual new technology. There is no rational model in which the effect of good lifestyle choices would be an argument for not pursuing genetic and otherwise interventions to increase real lifespan. [1] https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-takes-a-big-toll-on-your-lifespan-but-excellent-nutrition-only-adds-small-benefit-compared-to-an-average-one/ https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-ta...
- lm28469 7y ago
  > while very helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long life, and have a relatively small effect at that. > Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot. Depends on your definition of "living", being obese/out of shape and on constant medication for diabetes/heart issues, not being able to do the most basic exercises, &c. isn't life by my standards. I don't care if I die at 40, at least I would have reached my peak physical and mental shape. To me fighting to increase lifespan is complete non sense, look around, we don't need more time, we just need less work, mindless activities and gadgets. We spend our lives slaving away until we're literally too old to do it anymore to buy shit we don't need. I notice it all the time around me, most people are miserable, they live in the constant hope of a better day by thinking about their next weekend or vacation, some people in their 20s already talk about what they'll do when they retire (at fucking 67 years old). Increasing our lifespan won't do anything meaningful besides putting more strain on the world, both economically and ecologically. Like most things, it was figured out a long time ago by people who had way way way more time to spend on thinking and less time to spend on mindless information consumption. Take Seneca for example: > A person like him has not lived; he has merely tarried awhile in life. Nor has he died late in life; he has simply been a long time dying. He has lived eighty years, has he? That depends upon the date from which you reckon his death! ... [He] has lived eighty years, has he? Nay, he has existed eighty years, unless perchance you mean by "he has lived" what we mean when we say that a tree "lives." > No man can have a peaceful life who thinks too much about lengthening it, or believes that living through many consulships is a great blessing. Rehearse this thought every day, that you may be able to depart from life contentedly; for many men clutch and cling to life, even as those who are carried down a rushing stream clutch and cling to briars and sharp rocks. > Show me that the good in life does not depend upon life's length, but upon the use we make of it; also, that it is possible, or rather usual, for a man who has lived long to have lived too little. > We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul.
  - thom 7y ago
    There are probably people who think running around all the time and not being able to eat whatever they like isn't life by their standards. It takes all sorts.

melling 7y ago

“science progresses one funeral at a time” Many people believe things that simply aren’t true and you can’t convince them otherwise. A new generation comes along and challenges entrenched ideas and progress is made. Perhaps we can grow past this way of thinking? What does the science say about your thoughts on the subject?

antepodius 7y ago
How much of that effect comes about because people's brains stop being flexible due to age?

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

This is for the most part, incorrect. Please see this video of Aubrey de Grey, where he explains that those lifestyle choices you describe, while very helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long life, and have a relatively small effect at that. They can sometimes have large effect on the negative side, where if we measure effect in people in poor conditions, where they have severely bad lifestyle choices, due to malnutrition or poisoning for example, or complete lack of vitamin sources, etc. Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot. If your genes are telling you to live to 70, you will not live to 100, no matter how many cabbages you eat or how many days spend hiking in the woods. To really increase lifespan beyond that we need actual new technology. There is no rational model in which the effect of good lifestyle choices would be an argument for not pursuing genetic and otherwise interventions to increase real lifespan. [1] https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-takes-a-big-toll-on-your-lifespan-but-excellent-nutrition-only-adds-small-benefit-compared-to-an-average-one/ https://www.codereactor.net/aubrey-de-grey-poor-nutrition-ta...

lm28469 7y ago
> while very helpful, can only increase your chances for your regular long life, and have a relatively small effect at that. > Poor lifestyle can severely diminish base lifespan, but a good one cannot increase lifespan by a lot. Depends on your definition of "living", being obese/out of shape and on constant medication for diabetes/heart issues, not being able to do the most basic exercises, &c. isn't life by my standards. I don't care if I die at 40, at least I would have reached my peak physical and mental shape. To me fighting to increase lifespan is complete non sense, look around, we don't need more time, we just need less work, mindless activities and gadgets. We spend our lives slaving away until we're literally too old to do it anymore to buy shit we don't need. I notice it all the time around me, most people are miserable, they live in the constant hope of a better day by thinking about their next weekend or vacation, some people in their 20s already talk about what they'll do when they retire (at fucking 67 years old). Increasing our lifespan won't do anything meaningful besides putting more strain on the world, both economically and ecologically. Like most things, it was figured out a long time ago by people who had way way way more time to spend on thinking and less time to spend on mindless information consumption. Take Seneca for example: > A person like him has not lived; he has merely tarried awhile in life. Nor has he died late in life; he has simply been a long time dying. He has lived eighty years, has he? That depends upon the date from which you reckon his death! ... [He] has lived eighty years, has he? Nay, he has existed eighty years, unless perchance you mean by "he has lived" what we mean when we say that a tree "lives." > No man can have a peaceful life who thinks too much about lengthening it, or believes that living through many consulships is a great blessing. Rehearse this thought every day, that you may be able to depart from life contentedly; for many men clutch and cling to life, even as those who are carried down a rushing stream clutch and cling to briars and sharp rocks. > Show me that the good in life does not depend upon life's length, but upon the use we make of it; also, that it is possible, or rather usual, for a man who has lived long to have lived too little. > We should strive, not to live long, but to live rightly; for to achieve long life you have need of Fate only, but for right living you need the soul.
- thom 7y ago
  There are probably people who think running around all the time and not being able to eat whatever they like isn't life by their standards. It takes all sorts.