8 ms·
More green spaces linked to slower biological aging
- LatteLazy 3y agoWe need to stop doing these pointless studies. Everything is linked to everything, showing it is is a waste of money because (1) we already know and (2) we can't use this info because we don't know what causes what. But people would rather click on these pieces and feel good having their assumptions confirmed that learn and actually improve our society.
- xiphias2 3y agoYou're right, it's basically air pollution. We know that air pollution makes people older and kills millions every year, although the exact mechanism is not known (I have lots of health problems because of it, but no good test to show it except bad sleep patterns at places with high air pollution). We also know the solutions: electric cars (I just bought my first), heat pumps with electric heating, and reversing aging.
- globular-toast 3y agoElectric cars are still part of the problem, not the solution. They still cause particulate pollution due to brake and tyre dust plus wear on the roads due to excessive weight. And that's not to mention the noise pollution, stress and danger caused by cars. Bicycles are the solution to that particular problem.
- CalRobert 3y agoElectric cars make it more difficult for other people to adopt low-pollution lifestyles by making the streets more dangerous for those walking or biking, and produce a lot of particulates from the tyres, especially since they're quite heavy. An electric bike, though, is a pretty great choice!
- xorfish 3y agoCars are generally not a mode of transport that makes sense in a city. There are some exceptions, but the vast majority of transportation in a city should be by foot, bicycle or public transport.
- dontlaugh 3y agoCars are a big part of the problem, regardless of energy source. Trains, trams, buses, bikes, walking, etc. are the actual solution.
- mrpopo 3y agoElectric cars are not a solution (most of the particles come from the brakes, tyres and too many roads instead of vegetation, which blocks wind dust and erosion). Heat pumps or electric heating help solve climate change, not air pollution (it helps a bit if it replaces an old wood stove, but would make things worse if the grid is coal-powered, which is sadly still common). Reversing aging isn't a thing and even if it were, it wouldn't be a solution to anything. Air pollution problems aren't only about physical health but mental health and biodiversity as well. Maybe I don't get the sarcasm.
- Swenrekcah 3y agoPeople do these studies so that you can then use it to actually improve society by, let's say increase and improve our green spaces. When someone asks you why you're wasting time and money on a silly childish thing like a greener city instead of more asphalt for Business Inc. you can point to this study.
- LatteLazy 3y agoBut we already know green spaces are nice. And this study does not prove anything about them being good for people. Maybe instead of X USD on this study we should have spent that money on an actual green space somewhere...
- ethanbond 3y agoIt does in fact increase our evidence that they’re actually good for people beyond being mere perks that some people enjoy.
- LatteLazy 3y agoNo, It doesn't. Because it does not show causation. We either prove causation or it's worthless.
- baanlox 3y ago[flagged]
- 10g1k 3y agoNot at all. That's not how science works. A huge percentage of rigorous scientific studies are specifically showing correlations between things. "Correlation doesn't equal causation!" cried the internerds. It doesn't need to. If you've got a set (P) of N people who consume substance X, and N people (Q) who did not consume substance X, and 100% of set P died within half an hour of that act, and 100% of Q are still happy little dandelions, that is an entirely valid scientific finding, and an entirely sufficient reason to stop the supply of substance X.
- schrectacular 3y agoYou might enjoy this conversation, which goes into why we get so many papers like this: https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and-the-academic-kitchen/ https://www.econtalk.org/adam-mastroianni-on-peer-review-and... TLDR; the incentives are all aligned for researchers to do very narrow, marginal work.
- vharuck 3y agoI've been repeating this in my work with statewide health data. The answer to, "Is there a difference in X between group Y and group Z?" is always "Yes." No data collection or significance test needed. If you want to know if being Y or Z affects X, you need a properly controlled experiment. Studies using observational and non-comprehensive data collection have their place. They show reality. If people in one city have an incredibly high rate of dying from heart disease, that means we could reduce premature deaths there. And we'd do that by looking at the results of controlled studies into the causes of heart disease, then see which ones are prevalent and changeable.
- Already__Taken 3y agonah I don't buy it. it's just work Vs free time. Any serious sailor in their 50s looks shagged, and they've had all the outdoor space you can get. plus if you ask those people they'll actually be just 29.
- bluecalm 3y agoIt's not like sailors spend a lot of time in green spaces though. On serious note: exposure to extreme wind and sun day after day can't be good for your skin.
- amelius 3y agoSailors get 2x the amount of sun (from the reflection in the water) than someone in an open field. People spending time in the forest are protected by the shade.
- sjwod 3y agoThe article talks about the benefits of living near and having access to green spaces, not doing manual work outside in the elements all day, which is clearly not the same thing.
- localplume 3y ago[dead]
- blitzar 3y agoFarmers look famously young for their age ... put a 30 year old farmer and a 40 year old lawyer in a room together and you might mistake one for the others father.
- WesolyKubeczek 3y agoI would say that that lawyer was the farmer’s son, of course
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- LeafItAlone 3y ago> Farmers look famously young for their age I come from a family of farmers. I would not agree with this statement.
- ido 3y agoI assumed they were being sarcastic, especially as the farmer in the example is 10 years younger.
- LeafItAlone 3y agoThat line is what made me think they weren’t being sarcastic. I thought they were saying the 10 year age difference would be exaggerated.
- CyberDildonics 3y agoFarmers look famously young for their age Where does this idea come from? Farmers can end up outside all day which can age someone heavily.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- giantg2 3y agoIs this missing the /sarcasm?
- tiku 3y agoSo if you live in a good part of town you live longer. Not really surprising?
- taneq 3y agoAll sorts of good outcomes are highly correlated with being well off financially.
- thfuran 3y agoAnd you don't think they bothered to adjust for that even though they said they did?
- taneq 3y agoStatistics isn't my strong suit but as I understand adjustment for covariates then it's a linear remapping of the sample data. If that's right then strongly nonlinear confounding factors (as, for instance, I'd expect wealth to be) would still affect the outcomes even after being "adjusted for". Happy to be set straight on this if I've misunderstood!
- globular-toast 3y agoMore like if you have enough money you live longer and live in a good part of town.
- Mizoguchi 3y agoI don't see in the paper they adjusted by family size. They mention socioeconomic status but that isn't the same thing. Would it be possible people living in urban areas close to parks have less kids or no children at all? Usually real state closer to parks within the city permiter are much more expensive, the same money buys you less square footage. I have done my own study with 7 siblings in my family half with children and I can assure you having kids adds at least 3 years of biological age per kid.
- tenpies 3y agoThe parenting factor is actually quite interesting because while I think most of us would agree that parents look older faster, the overall trend is that they make up for it by living longer than their non-parent peers. It's not a huge difference: 2 additional years in men, 1.5 in women; but it's significant enough[1]. --- [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292784/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28292784/
- DataDaoDe 3y ago> It's not a huge difference: 2 additional years in men, 1.5 in women; but it's significant enough I would be careful to conclude causality here. There are a lot of confounding factors in these studies. For instance, most childless people are not childless by choice but due to already existing illnesses which predispose them to shorter lifespans. Socioeconomic factors also play a huge role. For instance, the numerous studies which show that adoptive parents live longer than their childless counterparts need to account for the wealth and lifestyle factors that allow these parents to adopt kids in the first place. There have also been studies showing an inverse relationship. Nonetheless, a clear fact is this: "People with children live longer than people without". IMHO, they need a robust study on otherwise healthy and socioeconomically stable individuals (perhaps otherwise childless by choice sperm/egg donors) with healthy counterparts. In order to see, if something like, "In order to increase your longevity, its good to have kids." is reasonable or not. Personally, I'd say the judge is still out on that one.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoWhat variables did they control for?
- alliao 3y agocorrelation does not equal to causation I'd insert the hand clapping emoji if I could; probably why it isn't allowed here. This isn't too dissimilar to people who eat salmon live longer despite higher mercury content detected in blood. it's not the salmon rather it's the fact that they are able to consistently able to afford salmon.
- 7952 3y agoCorrelation with other factors can also hide interesting science and understanding. There may well be mechanisms at play that we don't understand.
- jlpom 3y agoMaybe also the higher OM-3 intake offset the effects of the mercury.
- hombre_fatal 3y agoYou’re making a claim about how mercury should be impacting people that eat salmon that I wouldn’t grant. It might just be the case that salmon consumption under some threshold confers benefits that outweigh suspected detriments especially when a population tends to replace salmon with worse food.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- jnurmine 3y agoIf I could design zoning things and building regulations and generally Simcity/Cities micromanage in real life, I would set a demand of reserving let's say 500 m2 of green space for every occupant in a multistorey building. This aggregated space would have to be right next to or around the building. As a concrete example: to build a building for 100 people, one must have 100*500 = 5 hectares of space around the building, reserved for a green space only, not parking lots or such. Buildings would be more spaced apart and would not trap heat so much like traditional dense designs, so urban centers would be cooler. I dare to claim that people would be less crazy and generally happier and healthier when living like this. Over time, building less densely would see all kinds of positive effects compounding. The green space could be used for many good things, e.g. growing hyperlocal food like vegetables, potatoes or whatever grows well in the climate, for having tree-shaded places during warm days, for just having a piece of nature to go to quickly and easily. Smaller batches of forest shading a path could connect multiple buildings built with the same ideas, and so on. It would be possible to use bicycles or walk along these paths. In a nutshell, if one has to build high, then make all multi-storey buildings like a stacked nano-village surrounded by a larger green area/forest. Based on my subjective understanding very few people actually like the ground floor so that's a good place to put local small businesses like barber, shop, bakery, café, and so on.
- aaaronic 3y ago"As a concrete example:..." I ended up completely misreading that line at first because my brain was desperately looking for a pun.
- PartyOperator 3y agoTowers in the park is not a new idea. Le Corbusier was a big fan. In practice it tends not to work well. Additionally mandating a very low population density almost guarantees failure. Staying below 2000 people per square km will make it difficult to provide good public transport or other amenities, including shops. Anyone able to afford a car will want at least one per household, further reducing the population density and making it harder to get around on foot/bike/bus. Ultimately the only people who would choose this form of low-density living over conventional suburban homes would be those unable to afford their own house. Pleasant landscaping is expensive to maintain and almost guaranteed not to happen for a handful of poor people so you'd either end up with impenetrable forest or bare grass and concrete between buildings. There are a few cases where something like this works quite well, but generally only the highest density versions when located in or near a large, prosperous city that already has excellent amenities. Otherwise it tends to be a disaster. Optimizing for one thing alone rarely works in urban planing, even if the idea of ample green space for everyone seems uncontroversial.
- m3kw9 3y agoMakes sense, the air is better, more outdoor activities, less sitting, more relaxed environment lots of causations