4 ms·
> Few years later he died of cancer. So he was right to be cautious because he was susceptible to cancer. I dislike when people use anecdotes like this to impl
by abletonlive 3y ago
> Few years later he died of cancer.
So he was right to be cautious because he was susceptible to cancer. I dislike when people use anecdotes like this to imply that you should do nothing. What's the point of exercising, looking both ways before you cross the street, if you could get mauled by a dog tomorrow?
- glimshe 3y agoBoth of you raise good points. The wisdom on the parent is: life is dangerous and there is only so much you can do to avoid death. You probably shouldn't, then, waste time with unusual and extravagant prevention measures like their example.
- abletonlive 3y ago> You probably shouldn't, then, waste time with unusual and extravagant prevention measures like their example. I also disagree with this. That kind of thinking leads to less progress in figuring out if/how we can prolong life. Perhaps your kind of thinking is why people like Bryan Johnson get ridiculed for trying. Trying things and failing/succeeding is how we figure things out.
- glimshe 3y agoThe kind of thinking that leads to more progress would have to involve a scientific approach to understanding cost/benefit of death prevention measures, not random activities such as "let me cut 1cm away from the stem because I won't get cancer". Is this even true? Is 1cm the right gap? How many people get hurt by this extra measure? Are we overlooking other death prevention measures while focusing on this (which could be seen with a control group)? Reminds me parents obsessing about micro toddler safety while overlooking the swimming pool in the backyard. Anecdotal death prevention measures will likely lead to shorter, not longer lifespans.
- rat9988 3y agoOr maybe he would have died 10 years earlier without it.