4 ms·

I would argue that any person isolating for 10 years will for sure have very significant health drawbacks, so that would also have to be factored in.

mewpmewp2 3y ago
You mean in terms of immune system not having been exposed to enough pathogens?
- neverrroot 3y ago
  Not only, psychological consequences, lack of socialization, potentially lack of sun exposure, lack of getting medical checkups or adequate treatment etc.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    Would depend on the individual right. Not everyone requires socialisation. Isolation doesn't mean lack of sun exposure. Medical checkups would depend on the age and healthiness of the person.
    - neverrroot 3y ago
      I was talking about risks in general population, those are not zero, in spite of some individuals who post factum may turn out just fine after 10 years of isolation.
      - mewpmewp2 3y ago
        General population wouldn't strive for being isolated in the first place though.
  - ryukafalz 3y ago
    Along with the health drawbacks of a sedentary lifestyle, unless you're vigilant about getting enough intentional exercise to replace the walking around we do over the course of a typical day outside the house.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      That's also a weird assumption. The sedentary part. My dream life is owning large amount of land with a house where I can be completely self sustainable, including various automations and this includes having an in-built gym.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  No, it's a myth (albeit a popular one) that the human immune system benefits from being "toughened up" by actual pathogens. It's more about calibration by non-pathogens we co-evolved with. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700688114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700688114
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    What about the isolated populations, e.g. Sentinelese that are documented to die because they don't have the immune system developed to protect themselves against the viruses rest of the World has? Although I would agree that 10 years later in your life is unlikely to create an issue. > The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation 1956[9] prohibits travel to the island, and any approach closer than 5 nautical miles (9.3 km), in order to protect the remaining tribal community from "mainland" infectious diseases against which they likely have no acquired immunity. The area is patrolled by the Indian Navy.[10]
    - Terr_ 3y ago
      I think that confuses: A: What behaviors or environments lead to adult immune systems calibrated to minimize autoimmune dysfunctions. B: Comparing populations that already/ haven't developed inherited countermeasures against certain diseases. C: (In some cases) Specific pathogens where it is less-damaging to encounter them at different phases of life. In particular, I'd point out that sometimes a population strong against a particular disease does not necessarily have "better" immune systems... Sometimes it's literally survivorship bias, where all of the vulnerable individuals they used to have already died in tragic ways.

mewpmewp2 3y ago

You mean in terms of immune system not having been exposed to enough pathogens?

neverrroot 3y ago
Not only, psychological consequences, lack of socialization, potentially lack of sun exposure, lack of getting medical checkups or adequate treatment etc.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  Would depend on the individual right. Not everyone requires socialisation. Isolation doesn't mean lack of sun exposure. Medical checkups would depend on the age and healthiness of the person.
  - neverrroot 3y ago
    I was talking about risks in general population, those are not zero, in spite of some individuals who post factum may turn out just fine after 10 years of isolation.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      General population wouldn't strive for being isolated in the first place though.
- ryukafalz 3y ago
  Along with the health drawbacks of a sedentary lifestyle, unless you're vigilant about getting enough intentional exercise to replace the walking around we do over the course of a typical day outside the house.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    That's also a weird assumption. The sedentary part. My dream life is owning large amount of land with a house where I can be completely self sustainable, including various automations and this includes having an in-built gym.
Terr_ 3y ago
No, it's a myth (albeit a popular one) that the human immune system benefits from being "toughened up" by actual pathogens. It's more about calibration by non-pathogens we co-evolved with. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700688114 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700688114
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  What about the isolated populations, e.g. Sentinelese that are documented to die because they don't have the immune system developed to protect themselves against the viruses rest of the World has? Although I would agree that 10 years later in your life is unlikely to create an issue. > The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation 1956[9] prohibits travel to the island, and any approach closer than 5 nautical miles (9.3 km), in order to protect the remaining tribal community from "mainland" infectious diseases against which they likely have no acquired immunity. The area is patrolled by the Indian Navy.[10]
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    I think that confuses: A: What behaviors or environments lead to adult immune systems calibrated to minimize autoimmune dysfunctions. B: Comparing populations that already/ haven't developed inherited countermeasures against certain diseases. C: (In some cases) Specific pathogens where it is less-damaging to encounter them at different phases of life. In particular, I'd point out that sometimes a population strong against a particular disease does not necessarily have "better" immune systems... Sometimes it's literally survivorship bias, where all of the vulnerable individuals they used to have already died in tragic ways.