Are Castrated Males more or less healthy than Regular Males?

[arien]

A priori, I suspect the castrated to be less healthy. The idea that the structures the body naturally strives to develop are unhealthy seems to be antithetical to Ray's worldview; another recapitulation of the Fall of Adam into biology, just like circumcision or recommendations against eating sugar or salt.

Furthermore, there's this, which suggests that men need testosteronee for more than fertility:

It is important to emphasize that progesterone is not just the hormone of pregnancy. To use it only "to protect the uterus" would be like telling a man he doesn't need testosterone if he doesn't plan to father children, except that progesterone is of far greater and more basic significance than testosterone. While men do naturally produce progesterone, and can sometimes benefit from using it, it is not a male hormone. Some people get that impression, because some physicians recommend combining estrogen with either testosterone or progesterone, to protect against some of estrogen's side effects, but progesterone is the body's natural complement to estrogen. - Ray Peat, 'Progesterone, Pregnenolone & DHEA'

 

[Sheila]

I have no experience with humans in this situation but I think that castrated dogs tend to have much increased oestrogen as they can become fat quite quickly. This could also be as a result of the awful food that many are fed. My large castrated male dog still has 'interest' in his 'sisters' and is masculine in his pack behaviour. His coat is outstanding but then he's fed well, so it always was good.

I seem to recall RP saying a varicocele was essentially a varicosed vein in the testicles. Could it then not respond to progest-e or even just vitamin e applied topically over time? I spent years using the 'other' natural varicose treatments (homeopathic CF; witch-hazel; butchers broom, horsechestnut) to limited avail, but metabolic methods plus progest-e and vitamin e have done the job instead.

Not having these things myself, (ie testicles), I wonder if the veins get bigger or smaller (I'm not sure either that any difference can be felt) such as rectal haemorrhoids or visible varicosed veins do, as if this happens, this change (either way) might also give you an idea that what you are doing for yourself is working/not working. You might also look out for unusual bleeding and bruising tendencies which will also tend to suggest vascular irritation and I think excess oestrogen. Oestrogen surges and teeth bleeding seem to be related.
These are just some of the links I've noticed, their applicability? Well you'd be much better to judge!
Sheila

 

[fyo]

Having low T causes depression, lethargy, loss of libido, weakness, etc.

So then, all women are depressed, lethargic, lazy, weak?

It will make you less attractive and less dominant.

People's sense of 'attractive' varies greatly. I admit that 'dominant' personalities are often considered attractive. Yet, still, I am personally not interested in 'dominance'. Consider what type of female you'd like to attract.

The 'dominance' paradigm is a product of stressful environment. Its good to be strong when you live in a world where people are regularly shoved around. But my how different and better off we would all be without that violence and insecurity.

I don't blame you for wanting to be tough, but I don't think toughness is the end-state for humanity, unless you think a callus in the pinnacle of beauty.

 

[fyo]

A priori, I suspect the castrated to be less healthy. The idea that the structures the body naturally strives to develop are unhealthy seems to be antithetical to Ray's worldview
The 'nature' of man (and life) is responsible to its environment. If you strain muscles, then muscles will grow, but that doesn't necessarily mean big muscles are the correct path, just look at the musculature of a naked chimp vs man.

All of us are living in non-ideal environments. Therefore, the things we develop are not necessarily ideal, but rather tempered by a relatively harsh reality.

For consideration of ideal, I think children are the best to look at. Children have the highest metabolic rate, the highest health (coming from the wonderfully protective womb), and most often have the least demands put upon them. If you look at them, you will notice rather undeveloped sexual features. Also note how high infant brain metabolism compared to later stages: http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food2/U ... D09E0E.HTM (figure 1).

 

[arien]

The 'nature' of man (and life) is responsible to its environment. If you strain muscles, then muscles will grow, but that doesn't necessarily mean big muscles are the correct path, just look at the musculature of a naked chimp vs man.

All of us are living in non-ideal environments. Therefore, the things we develop are not necessarily ideal, but rather tempered by a relatively harsh reality.

For consideration of ideal, I think children are the best to look at. Children have the highest metabolic rate, the highest health (coming from the wonderfully protective womb), and most often have the least demands put upon them. If you look at them, you will notice rather undeveloped sexual features. Also note how high infant brain metabolism compared to later stages: http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food2/U ... D09E0E.HTM (figure 1).

Nevertheless, healthy male children have testicles and it is a state of stress which normally prevents their development. We are talking about castration - the complete absence of testicles. Moreover, I think your statements serve to demonstrate my point: this is the way we adapt to our environment. My perspective is that life is a good thing and as such, my default attitude toward the body's natural functions is to presume they are healthy. The idea that our reaction to our environment is bad says that either we or our environment is bad; the Fall of Adam, either way. As such, I have trouble viewing broad biological categories like 'male' or 'female' as bad.

Reptiles have minimally developed sexual characteristics. It is often difficult to tell which gender they possess by sight. Alternatively, more highly metabolising organisms have more obvious gender, increasing in clarity until you reach adult humans.

While the physiology of children is important and instructive (they our our own attempt to recapitulate the best parts of ourselves into the future, without accumulated metabolic damage), I am immediately suspicious of unqualiified exhortations to emulate their character. For example, western educational institutions are designed precisely to maximise the childishness of the populace, because this makes people more dependent, submissive and suggestible; more easily controlled. Look at the work of Cubberley, Inglis and Conant. Or if you really want to get to the source, look into the Great Chain of Being and Plato's Republic. Schooling is how you are made into a link in the chain; keeping you as a child as long as possible is its chief method.

In fact, I think many of the stress related issues that people find Peat's work so helpful in resolving are borne precisely from the scientifically devised infatilisation methods employed in schools. We are conditioned to liberate fatty acids in response to a teacher's disapproving look, in perfect preparation for presentation before the police officer or the magistrate.

Another aspect of this, yet more pertinent to the subject of this thread, is the feminisation of men and the masculinisation of women; partly via pop-cultural conditioning and ideology (feminism, polyamory, degraded understandings of masculinity like the 'dominance paradigm' which you cite, etc), partly by seeding the environment with oestrogenic substances. I am suspicious there may be large scale environmental EMF manipulation used toward this end as well, above and beyond the still fairly problematic issues associated with WIFI and other such fields.

Estrogen has a special place in relation to the water in an organism. It is intimately involved with the formation of the egg cell, and wherever it operates, it increases both the quantity of water and, apparently, the disorder of the water. Its function, I believe, is to promote regeneration, as in Zotin's scheme, by increasing entropy, or "scrambling the animal." The way it promotes regeneration is by promoting water uptake, stimulating cell division, and erasing the differentiated state to one degree or another, providing a new supply of "stem cells," or cells at the beginning of a certain sequence of differentiation. These more numerous cells then must find a hospitable environment in which to develop and adapt. If the proper support can't be found, then they will be recycled, like the unfed cells in the brain of a fetus. If we imagine the course of development as a summary of evolution ("ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny"), then the egg, as it "unscrambles" itself in embryonic development, passing through stages resembling jelly fish, worm, fish, reptile, bird, baboon, keeps finding that the available energy allows it to, in effect, say "I want this, I don't want that," until it emerges as a human baby, saying "I want," and begins eating and learning, and with luck continues the unscrambling, or self-actualization.. Degenerative aging, rather than being "physically derived from the properties of time," seems to be produced situationally, by various types of contamination of our energy supply. Unsaturated fats, interacting with an excess of iron and a deficiency of oxygen or usable energy, redirect our developmental path. - Ray, 'The problem of Alzheimer's disease...'

The above makes it clear to me that Ray thinks development and differentiation are good things; that they are the creation of order. Developing into a clearly defined man or woman is part of the process of self-actualisation which he cites.

 

[visionofstrength]

Interesting commentary! Castrated eunuchs do live a lot longer, as much as 20 years! But this ignores so many Peat variables, such as thyroid and progesterone and ..... well, what the heck, let's just make a post about it....

Quick Peat Takeaways:

Small, frequent amounts of DHEA/testosterone are very healthful but only if these can be balanced with sufficient thyroid and progesterone.

Finding your own balance is the key, based on the CO2 levels in your exhaled breath, which should measure 5-6%.

If you don't feel good, or are underweight or overweight, really for any reason, then the CO2 level in your breath is almost surely lower than 5-6%. You can easily measure the CO2 level in your breath for yourself by getting a CO2 sensor.

Low CO2 may be improved over the long term by:
1) eliminating unsaturated fat and allegens from the diet;
2) having a raw carrot or activated charcoal every day; and
3) getting frequent, small amounts of casein, saturated fat, fructose, and a broad range of "uncouplers"*** to improve tissue oxidation, especially in your liver and brain.

Improved tissue oxidation means you produce more CO2; and the more CO2 you produce, the more your tissue oxidation improves!

Please PM me if you need more. I promise you, Peat's ideas are actually very easy to do, and they really do work. But no, they are not for everybody to follow in lockstep. In fact, please pay no attention to what others might say! Because finding out for yourself what works for you, and you alone, is its own reward!

***Breathing or ingesting CO2 is really the only safe, sure way to achieve an immediate increase in CO2, though the level may fall once you stop. In addition to CO2, the "uncouplers" include redlight, thyroid, progesterone, DHEA/testosterone, magnesium, calcium, selenium, sodium, coffee, black tea, gelatin, niacinamide, thiamine, Vitamins A, D, E and K2, and methylene blue.

NOTE: Purity and dose is everything! And when it comes to testosterone, your CO2 context is everything.

 

[fyo]

The idea that our reaction to our environment is bad says that either we or our environment is bad; the Fall of Adam, either way. As such, I have trouble viewing broad biological categories like 'male' or 'female' as bad.

Yes, I would say the environment is 'bad', or at least, non-optimal.

I don't mean to say male or female are bad, nor do I specifically know whether castration is a good idea. I just want to point out that the sexual differentiation between a young boy and young girl is minimal in comparison to that between man and woman. Also that most of the masculiniizing features, such as hairiness or muscles, contrast against the more neotenized features of a human female (or child).

Reptiles have minimally developed sexual characteristics. It is often difficult to tell which gender they possess by sight. Alternatively, more highly metabolising organisms have more obvious gender, increasing in clarity until you reach adult humans.

That's interesting, but I still don't think it proves that high sexual differentiation is valuable. Yes, human females have clear and present breasts unlike other apes, and partly I'm sure that has to do with how energetically successful humans have been over evolution.

But could someone explain how omnipresent breasts are actually useful to humanity? Or, for example, how is are the giant peacock tails useful? Mostly these things seem like a waste of energy, especially in comparison to the limitless potential of brain-energy. Only in the stressful context of competitive selection do these things become useful or necessary.

western educational institutions are designed precisely to maximise the childishness of the populace

I dislike most educational institutions aswell. However, I don't see their design as maximizing 'childishness', rather I see most of their rules as contradicting and subverting child behavior.

For example, being required to sit still in a chair, or raise your hand to talk, or needing permission to use the bathroom. All these are training obedience, and are quite un-childlike.

I think this depends on how you see children. I don't really see their nature are 'dependent' or 'submissive'. They are dependent, but that's a fact of nature due to their lack of skills and comfort in a new world. Their direction though is constantly towards growing more skills, growing more independence and ability. And I've seen a lot more subversive/playful behavior in kids than I have submissive, for example testing rules or toying with the things people say. I think 'submissiveness' mostly arrives not because the child values submission but because, in their so fresh and weak state they consider that the better option, sometimes out of respect, but in the case of school or harsh parents then out of pain/fear of punishment.

Schooling is how you are made into a link in the chain; keeping you as a child as long as possible is its chief method.

So then, we should expect older adults to be the least child-like, and therefore the most likely to break the 'chain' of behavior, right? But what I see is the opposite. Usually its older adults who want to keep things as they are, and young kids (18-25) who want to shake things up, do something different, break the chain.

The above makes it clear to me that Ray thinks development and differentiation are good things; that they are the creation of order. Developing into a clearly defined man or woman is part of the process of self-actualisation which he cites.

The growing organism makes choices, and generally speaking choices are good (anti-entropy). But these choices are also informed by the progenitor's own history, all of which I believe have been more stressful than could be achieved now (or in the future).

What I'm suggesting is that, if we lived in more optimal environments, we would make different developmental choices, and that these choices would lead us towards less, not more sexual differentiation.

For example, as a male, what use is beard hair, a masculine trait? Would you like more hair? We could go back to looking like apes, with hair all over. Or more muscles, is that really necessary these days? Bigger gonads, or for females, bigger breasts? I just don't really see the point. A breast is a breast and I don't think we need bigger breasts, but rather bigger and better brains.

This isn't just all theory either. I think Asians have the most neotenized features, and you'll notice their males, for example, have much less beard hair, also often having the highest IQ, among other child-like features. I wouldn't call it 'feminization' either, because in this case it just happens that female features are more neotenized than male ones. Really, its neoteny, I think, which will and should be driving our choices, not particularly masculinity or femininity, however we may see that to be.

 

[Sheila]

OK VoS, would be grateful for details please on an appropriate CO2 sensor to purchase, I'm up for giving this a go as data is my new focus in 2015. With thanks,
Sheila

 

[visionofstrength]

OK VoS, would be grateful for details please on an appropriate CO2 sensor to purchase, I'm up for giving this a go as data is my new focus in 2015. With thanks,
Sheila

I PM'd you the specs.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Fyo I'm a bit new here so i don't understand the culture all that much yet but I find it completely ridiculous to say that because children are healthier, being in a childlike physical state as an adult is a good idea.

People's sense of 'attractive' varies greatly. I admit that 'dominant' personalities are often considered attractive. Yet, still, I am personally not interested in 'dominance'. Consider what type of female you'd like to attract.

The 'dominance' paradigm is a product of stressful environment. Its good to be strong when you live in a world where people are regularly shoved around. But my how different and better off we would all be without that violence and insecurity.

I don't blame you for wanting to be tough, but I don't think toughness is the end-state for humanity, unless you think a callus in the pinnacle of beauty.

All women are attracted to dominant men. Dominant doesn't necessarily mean aggressive or violent. The general in an army is generally considered to be dominant but he doesn't go around beating people up. As far as endstage of evolution I don't see how that has to do with anything. You were designed to grow testicles and produce testosterone. I think not doing that would be unhealthier than doing it.

But anyways good luck with whatever you decide to do.

 

[johns74]

Fyo I'm a bit new here so i don't understand the culture all that much yet but I find it completely ridiculous to say that because children are healthier, being in a childlike physical state as an adult is a good idea.

It's a fairly extremely simple thing to understand. In the womb, humans heal without scars or inflammation. There are cases of kids with irreversible kidney disease who recover.

So it's natural to ask: what is it about them that makes them healthier? Ray Peat (who asked the question) answers that some of the most important factors are higher metabolic rate and carbon dioxide.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Fyo I'm a bit new here so i don't understand the culture all that much yet but I find it completely ridiculous to say that because children are healthier, being in a childlike physical state as an adult is a good idea.

It's a fairly extremely simple thing to understand. In the womb, humans heal without scars or inflammation. There are cases of kids with irreversible kidney disease who recover.

So it's natural to ask: what is it about them that makes them healthier? Ray Peat (who asked the question) answers that some of the most important factors are higher metabolic rate and carbon dioxide.

Interesting. Do you think castration and hormonally reverting to a childlike state might lead one to this state.

I don't think it's possible.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Finding your own balance is the key, based on the CO2 levels in your exhaled breath, which should measure 5-6%.

If you don't feel good, or are underweight or overweight, really for any reason, then the CO2 level in your breath is almost surely lower than 5-6%. You can easily measure the CO2 level in your breath for yourself by getting a CO2 sensor.

Low CO2 may be improved over the long term by:
1) eliminating unsaturated fat and allegens from the diet;
2) having a raw carrot or activated charcoal every day; and
3) getting frequent, small amounts of casein, saturated fat, fructose, and a broad range of "uncouplers"*** to improve tissue oxidation, especially in your liver and brain.

Improved tissue oxidation means you produce more CO2; and the more CO2 you produce, the more your tissue oxidation improves!

Please PM me if you need more. I promise you, Peat's ideas are actually very easy to do, and they really do work. But no, they are not for everybody to follow in lockstep. In fact, please pay no attention to what others might say! Because finding out for yourself what works for you, and you alone, is its own reward!

How would co2 help you gain weight? I am very underweight

 

[Ben]

The idea that our reaction to our environment is bad says that either we or our environment is bad; the Fall of Adam, either way. As such, I have trouble viewing broad biological categories like 'male' or 'female' as bad.

Yes, I would say the environment is 'bad', or at least, non-optimal.

I don't mean to say male or female are bad, nor do I specifically know whether castration is a good idea. I just want to point out that the sexual differentiation between a young boy and young girl is minimal in comparison to that between man and woman. Also that most of the masculiniizing features, such as hairiness or muscles, contrast against the more neotenized features of a human female (or child).

Reptiles have minimally developed sexual characteristics. It is often difficult to tell which gender they possess by sight. Alternatively, more highly metabolising organisms have more obvious gender, increasing in clarity until you reach adult humans.

That's interesting, but I still don't think it proves that high sexual differentiation is valuable. Yes, human females have clear and present breasts unlike other apes, and partly I'm sure that has to do with how energetically successful humans have been over evolution.

But could someone explain how omnipresent breasts are actually useful to humanity? Or, for example, how is are the giant peacock tails useful? Mostly these things seem like a waste of energy, especially in comparison to the limitless potential of brain-energy. Only in the stressful context of competitive selection do these things become useful or necessary.

western educational institutions are designed precisely to maximise the childishness of the populace

I dislike most educational institutions aswell. However, I don't see their design as maximizing 'childishness', rather I see most of their rules as contradicting and subverting child behavior.

For example, being required to sit still in a chair, or raise your hand to talk, or needing permission to use the bathroom. All these are training obedience, and are quite un-childlike.

I think this depends on how you see children. I don't really see their nature are 'dependent' or 'submissive'. They are dependent, but that's a fact of nature due to their lack of skills and comfort in a new world. Their direction though is constantly towards growing more skills, growing more independence and ability. And I've seen a lot more subversive/playful behavior in kids than I have submissive, for example testing rules or toying with the things people say. I think 'submissiveness' mostly arrives not because the child values submission but because, in their so fresh and weak state they consider that the better option, sometimes out of respect, but in the case of school or harsh parents then out of pain/fear of punishment.

Schooling is how you are made into a link in the chain; keeping you as a child as long as possible is its chief method.

So then, we should expect older adults to be the least child-like, and therefore the most likely to break the 'chain' of behavior, right? But what I see is the opposite. Usually its older adults who want to keep things as they are, and young kids (18-25) who want to shake things up, do something different, break the chain.

The above makes it clear to me that Ray thinks development and differentiation are good things; that they are the creation of order. Developing into a clearly defined man or woman is part of the process of self-actualisation which he cites.

The growing organism makes choices, and generally speaking choices are good (anti-entropy). But these choices are also informed by the progenitor's own history, all of which I believe have been more stressful than could be achieved now (or in the future).

What I'm suggesting is that, if we lived in more optimal environments, we would make different developmental choices, and that these choices would lead us towards less, not more sexual differentiation.

For example, as a male, what use is beard hair, a masculine trait? Would you like more hair? We could go back to looking like apes, with hair all over. Or more muscles, is that really necessary these days? Bigger gonads, or for females, bigger breasts? I just don't really see the point. A breast is a breast and I don't think we need bigger breasts, but rather bigger and better brains.

This isn't just all theory either. I think Asians have the most neotenized features, and you'll notice their males, for example, have much less beard hair, also often having the highest IQ, among other child-like features. I wouldn't call it 'feminization' either, because in this case it just happens that female features are more neotenized than male ones. Really, its neoteny, I think, which will and should be driving our choices, not particularly masculinity or femininity, however we may see that to be.

I really agree with these theories. A goal of mine is to help develop peoples' prefrontal cortices by selling Tianeptine, which in my experience has been the most powerful prefrontal cortex boosting substance out of any. It will promote spirituality in society. Notice how children have a head shape with a more prominent forehead, and that a lot of criminals have slanted foreheads. A stronger prefrontal cortex is the most necessary feature we need at the moment, with it people will be more responsible and care more for their brothers and sisters on Earth. It will reduce drinking, which in itself reduces the development of the prefrontal cortex. This is just one tiny example, it will have countless other positive effects.

I will also add that in addition to Eunuch's having higher life expectancy, Asians also have higher life expectancy. Testosterone production reduces potential intelligence and lifespan, so it promotes a faster and shallower lifestyle.

 

[johns74]

Interesting. Do you think castration

No

and hormonally reverting to a childlike state might lead one to this state.

Yes, in the sense that kids tend to have lower levels of stress hormones, so I would want to have low levels of things like cortisol and adrenalin like they do.

 

[arien]

Yes, I would say the environment is 'bad', or at least, non-optimal.

I don't mean to say male or female are bad, nor do I specifically know whether castration is a good idea. I just want to point out that the sexual differentiation between a young boy and young girl is minimal in comparison to that between man and woman. Also that most of the masculiniizing features, such as hairiness or muscles, contrast against the more neotenized features of a human female (or child).

Perhaps I should have made clear that my original purpose in engaging in this discussion was simply to express the intuition that surgically (or I supposed chemically, like Alan Turing) castrating someone subverts a process the body was otherwise trying to engage in, and as I view life to be principally a good thing, that such a subversion diverts development to something inferior (I do not mean this moralistically; I simply refer to the capacity to adapt). Due to surgery, the adaptive potential of the organism is limited. I view the cells' desire to create testicles, ovaries or breasts the same way I view their desire for sugar. Similarly, a lack of sugar tends to diminish these anatomical adaptations, like in a reptile. That our environment is not perfect, I agree. That it and our reactions to it are bad, I disagree.

Could it not be that the females' relatively neotenised features exist because the males' own characteristics produce an environment that permits them? Mutatis mutandis for children. Consider the association between earlier female puberty and an absent biological father. As humans have a very high metabolic rate, we can outsource different functions to one another; traditionally, men as producers and protectors, women as carers and teachers of their young. Again, reptiles not so much.

I dislike most educational institutions aswell. However, I don't see their design as maximizing 'childishness', rather I see most of their rules as contradicting and subverting child behavior.

Then I suspect you would do well to familiarise yourself with the authors I cited previously. These are the men who were in the midst of the creation of the modern western schooling method. They understood that if you kept children from assuming responsibility and independence as long as possible, i.e. becoming adults, you would emerge with an easily malleable population.

I think this depends on how you see children. I don't really see their nature are 'dependent' or 'submissive'. They are dependent, but that's a fact of nature due to their lack of skills and comfort in a new world. Their direction though is constantly towards growing more skills, growing more independence and ability. And I've seen a lot more subversive/playful behavior in kids than I have submissive, for example testing rules or toying with the things people say. I think 'submissiveness' mostly arrives not because the child values submission but because, in their so fresh and weak state they consider that the better option, sometimes out of respect, but in the case of school or harsh parents then out of pain/fear of punishment.

I view this as their desire to become adults, to grow and develop, to become less entropic. Their childish nature is dependence, which they do not like, as evidenced by their desire to become independent. Schooling exists to stop this happening. That is to say, it maintains the entropic, oestrogenic state of infancy as long as possible, ideally until a point at which the metabolism has been slowed by the anti-metabolic environmental factors sufficiently that no more development is possible.

So then, we should expect older adults to be the least child-like, and therefore the most likely to break the 'chain' of behavior, right? But what I see is the opposite. Usually its older adults who want to keep things as they are, and young kids (18-25) who want to shake things up, do something different, break the chain.

People may be physically adults, but they are psychologically, and therefore to a large degree physiologically, children, largely thanks to a great variety of social institutions all created with a similar goal. People who break the chain are those rare people who are permitted to develop into independent adults as soon as they choose to, which is much earlier than most infantilised people believe. A good example is the environment of colonial America and how this facillitated the split with the British Empire. Naturally, this was followed in the late 19th century by strong campaigns by the money power to enforce compulsory mass schooling. 1776 was not something they wanted to happen again and as such, both adults in general and men in particular had to be destroyed.

The growing organism makes choices, and generally speaking choices are good (anti-entropy). But these choices are also informed by the progenitor's own history, all of which I believe have been more stressful than could be achieved now (or in the future).

What I'm suggesting is that, if we lived in more optimal environments, we would make different developmental choices, and that these choices would lead us towards less, not more sexual differentiation.

For example, as a male, what use is beard hair, a masculine trait? Would you like more hair? We could go back to looking like apes, with hair all over. Or more muscles, is that really necessary these days? Bigger gonads, or for females, bigger breasts? I just don't really see the point. A breast is a breast and I don't think we need bigger breasts, but rather bigger and better brains.

What I am suggesting is that bigger and better brains will beget bigger gonads and muscles for men and bigger breasts and wider hips for women, such that the greater insight provided by increased cephalisation may be better protected and propagated. That is, a more permissive environment will produce more differentiated, complicated, resilient and fertile people.

 

[visionofstrength]

Interesting. Do you think castration

No

I myself really appreciate the effect of high testosterone and do everything I can to keep it high, but always in balance with thyroid and progesterone.

On the other hand, I think high testosterone out of balance is probably very bad. Criminal castration for criminals when it was tried actually did prevent recidivism, though small frequent doses of thyroid and progesterone might have worked just as well. Castration was just easier for the criminal state to enforce.

and hormonally reverting to a childlike state might lead one to this state.

Yes, in the sense that kids tend to have lower levels of stress hormones, so I would want to have low levels of things like cortisol and adrenalin like they do.

Back to the topic of childlike states! I think Peat refers to a state of bliss, or sometimes dreaming when awake, or a feeling of euphoria at high elevation.

I find I can induce this state consistently when the level of exhaled CO2 is very gradually increased by breathing or ingesting CO2 (in my case, to about 8%), but increasing too fast (as with bag breathing or breath holding) is uncomfortable and ruins the effect.

 

[fyo]

ridiculous to say that because children are healthier, being in a childlike physical state as an adult is a good idea.

See, Figure 1
http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food2/U ... D09E0E.HTM
(among other sources on the topic out there).

If you're an adult, then presently, ~25% of your calories are going to your brain.
Infant's on the other hand, may have ~65% of their calories going to their brain.

The reason for this difference in relative brain energy is because the physical states of infants and adults are different. The adult organs grow in size in order to cope with the environment that is more difficult than the infants. The adult has also atrophied/degraded in various ways over time.

What would it be like if 65% of your calories were going to your brain, instead of 25%? Is it so ridiculous to think you'd be better off: smarter, happier, more creative and playful?

All women are attracted to dominant men.

Nah

Dominant doesn't necessarily mean aggressive or violent.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dominant
a. Exercising the most power, control, or influence: the dominant nations during the Cold War.
b. Most abundant or conspicuous; predominant:

Power, control, influence. Hmm.

What about morality, inspiration, creativity?
What about subtlety?

What is power without morality? Violence, aggression.
What is control without inspiration? Authoritarianism.
What is influence without creativity? Monotony.
'Most conspicuous': bragging, boasting, showboating.

The general in an army is generally considered to be dominant but he doesn't go around beating people up.

He might not, but his subordinates will, upon his order. Not just 'beat people up', but literally kill people for disobeying. Even attempting to leave the military without permission is punishable by death.

Is this the sort of man you wish to aspire towards?\

Not to mention, the general himself is subordinate to the 'commander-in-chief'. There is only one of those. Therefore, can only one man be truly dominant? Dominance is a zero-sum game paradigm, ending in authoritarianism. Zero-sum games are the stuff of struggle, suffering and death, not living, happiness and life.

 

[fyo]

They understood that if you kept children from assuming responsibility and independence as long as possible, i.e. becoming adults

I define 'adults' differently, tho. When I think of adults I'm not thinking of a social state (i.e. responsible or independent), but a physiological state, i.e. post-puberty, and even moreso post ~30 yrs old.

I understand and agree with what you're saying about schooling manipulating people. I think our disagreement is just a preference of word choice, i.e. if I see an irresponsible adult I don't think of them as 'childish', but simply as an irresponsible adult. 'Child' for me is a high-status/high-value word (whereas most people typically see it as an insult).

What I am suggesting is that bigger and better brains will beget bigger gonads and muscles for men and bigger breasts and wider hips for women

Is this our future then?

I eagerly await.

 

[DaveFoster]

You have to define your terms. "Healthy" is completely contextual. The difficulty of an organism to maintain a state of optimal health scales with biological complexity. If we were single-celled organisms, it would be much more basic to maintain a state of health (although we would not have the cognitive ability to ensure such an environment).

Testosterone, and likewise dopamine, is responsible for mood, as previously mentioned, sexual interaction, (which ensures reproduction), sexual maturity and physical fitness, (all of which are incredibly important to survival), and metabolic function, (which plays into physical fitness).

It seems like you're saying that, if humans lived in an environment devoid of physical interaction (a brain in a vat scenario), then would we be healthier without our muscles and sex drives? The answer is once again, contextual, as we would have needed to evolve an entirely different set of evolutionary predispositions. We would, however, require fewer calories to function, as we would expedite our energy needs to machinery; we would use cranes to move boxes, rather than arms; we would develop babies in test tubes with nutrient solutions, rather than consuming said nutrients.

Nevertheless, be your own experiment! The only real knowledge is self-knowledge anyway, so here's a pair of scissors. Good luck, and show us your balls, pun intended.