4 ms·

40 has nothing to do with it. Every other day I see a Ask HN post from younger people bringing up depression, burnout, and apathy. Listen, there are 60 year ol

40 has nothing to do with it. Every other day I see a Ask HN post from younger people bringing up depression, burnout, and apathy. Listen, there are 60 year olds that look like our long held image of a 60 year that can barely walk or do anything. And then there are 60 year olds that go to the gym everyday. How do you want to play this? I don’t accept your premise that 40 has anything to do with it. Being a miserable fuck is age-agnostic. Trust me, I’m a professional malcontent.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kardianos 4y ago
There's a lot of biology in the mix here to that must not be dismissed. But I like your take. Do everything reasonable to continue forward and maintain your body and mind. Just don't completly ignore your genetics and biology and be open that they might speak-up and have a say too.
- jesuscript 4y ago
  I mean we have good evidence that athleticism at the competitive level has a drop off at a certain age, and even that is mostly only a factor at elite levels. There’s nothing stopping you from being a great basketball player in casual terms at any age. But cognition constantly being under ageist assault has little to no basis when you consider so many knowledge driven professions employ people well past middle age (academia, doctor, lawyers, scientists, writers, artists). They also do their best work much later in life.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  > Just don't completly ignore your genetics and biology and be open that they might speak-up and have a say too. They may have a say, but ultimately you can only try to deal with the cards you’ve been dealt. At least I wouldn’t just accept that I’m genetically predisposed to misery with no way out.
  - bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
    Just be mindful that the flip side of this perspective is to blame sick people for their condition.
    - Aeolun 4y ago
      Ah, yeah, that would suck. I guess it’s really only something you should apply to your own condition, never someone elses.
    - didericis 4y ago
      The optimum middle is to try to figure out the most achievable pathway to help people to as much health as possible regardless of where they’re at, while accepting where they’re at, and encouraging persistence in searching for achievable steps out of sickness if none are available. There’s an incredibly sad but inspiring documentary called “The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off” about a man named John Kennedy that died of a genetic skin condition called EB at 36. He did everything within his power to make the most of his life, and was brilliantly dedicated to squeezing as much meaning and good as possible out of his horrible situation. Failure to attempt moving away from and transcending sickness is itself possibly the worst form of sickness, and something that can be easily cured by just having someone genuinely loyal and rooting for you, even if only your inner self. What sick people need most, more than simple compassion and accommodations for their problems, are people genuinely rooting for health/trying to find solutions or grieving the difficulty in finding any.
- didericis 4y ago
  I’m a “biological optimist” and think a lot of what we consider “bad” can be and often is at least somewhat adaptive. Even things like aging and death; there are ways to age and die adaptively to give room to the next generation, to allow societal renewal/avoid sclerosis, etc. My understanding is that aging is thought to be in part an evolutionary adaptation against cancer, and a kind of pattern of creative destruction we see all over the place in both nature and society. There are also maladaptive tragic ways to age without remembering/learning how to live in your context, and maladaptive things like premature aging, disease, etc. All adaptation is contextual. This picture is probably familiar to a lot of people, and is a perfect illustration of what I’m talking about: https://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-howard-schatz/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic https://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-how... There is no universal “better”. At any age, in any environment, in any physical condition, there are contextually appropriate optimums, and always two categories of direction: 1) using whatever tools are at your disposal to adapt as much as you can while accepting (and testing) limitations 2) ignoring what tools you do and don’t have and either giving up or trying to get the world to adapt to you. The first direction is always better.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kardianos 4y ago

There's a lot of biology in the mix here to that must not be dismissed. But I like your take. Do everything reasonable to continue forward and maintain your body and mind. Just don't completly ignore your genetics and biology and be open that they might speak-up and have a say too.

jesuscript 4y ago
I mean we have good evidence that athleticism at the competitive level has a drop off at a certain age, and even that is mostly only a factor at elite levels. There’s nothing stopping you from being a great basketball player in casual terms at any age. But cognition constantly being under ageist assault has little to no basis when you consider so many knowledge driven professions employ people well past middle age (academia, doctor, lawyers, scientists, writers, artists). They also do their best work much later in life.
Aeolun 4y ago
> Just don't completly ignore your genetics and biology and be open that they might speak-up and have a say too. They may have a say, but ultimately you can only try to deal with the cards you’ve been dealt. At least I wouldn’t just accept that I’m genetically predisposed to misery with no way out.
- bqmjjx0kac 4y ago
  Just be mindful that the flip side of this perspective is to blame sick people for their condition.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    Ah, yeah, that would suck. I guess it’s really only something you should apply to your own condition, never someone elses.
  - didericis 4y ago
    The optimum middle is to try to figure out the most achievable pathway to help people to as much health as possible regardless of where they’re at, while accepting where they’re at, and encouraging persistence in searching for achievable steps out of sickness if none are available. There’s an incredibly sad but inspiring documentary called “The Boy Whose Skin Fell Off” about a man named John Kennedy that died of a genetic skin condition called EB at 36. He did everything within his power to make the most of his life, and was brilliantly dedicated to squeezing as much meaning and good as possible out of his horrible situation. Failure to attempt moving away from and transcending sickness is itself possibly the worst form of sickness, and something that can be easily cured by just having someone genuinely loyal and rooting for you, even if only your inner self. What sick people need most, more than simple compassion and accommodations for their problems, are people genuinely rooting for health/trying to find solutions or grieving the difficulty in finding any.
didericis 4y ago
I’m a “biological optimist” and think a lot of what we consider “bad” can be and often is at least somewhat adaptive. Even things like aging and death; there are ways to age and die adaptively to give room to the next generation, to allow societal renewal/avoid sclerosis, etc. My understanding is that aging is thought to be in part an evolutionary adaptation against cancer, and a kind of pattern of creative destruction we see all over the place in both nature and society. There are also maladaptive tragic ways to age without remembering/learning how to live in your context, and maladaptive things like premature aging, disease, etc. All adaptation is contextual. This picture is probably familiar to a lot of people, and is a perfect illustration of what I’m talking about: https://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-howard-schatz/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic https://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-how... There is no universal “better”. At any age, in any environment, in any physical condition, there are contextually appropriate optimums, and always two categories of direction: 1) using whatever tools are at your disposal to adapt as much as you can while accepting (and testing) limitations 2) ignoring what tools you do and don’t have and either giving up or trying to get the world to adapt to you. The first direction is always better.