There Is Probably No Limit To Human Lifespan

[mt_dreams]

There were many alternatives in the US before medicine was forcibly 'unified' leaving us with no alternative to the current hospital system.

The hospital is many places crammed into one. the worst things we've done is push all these things into one building. A better way is to separate death (hospice care), birth, er, & surgeries, etc. The birth & death under one roof is just plain crazy. The er at a hospital is one of the great creations of the AMA, and has saved millions of lives. i'm talking actual emergencies, not people panicking and going to the er, b/c in many cases you'd be better off not going . that said i do agree with you that the ama is a horrendous bully organization that discredited many alternative approaches, which has set us back a bit in certain fields within health care.

 

[yerrag]

The hospital is many places crammed into one. the worst things we've done is push all these things into one building. A better way is to separate death (hospice care), birth, er, & surgeries, etc. The birth & death under one roof is just plain crazy. The er at a hospital is one of the great creations of the AMA, and has saved millions of lives. i'm talking actual emergencies, not people panicking and going to the er, b/c in many cases you'd be better off not going . that said i do agree with you that the ama is a horrendous bully organization that discredited many alternative approaches, which has set us back a bit in certain fields within health care.

I'm not so much against putting all specialties under one roof. Whether or not it's under one roof matters less as much as whether there are competing methods for the patient to choose from. Currently, if you are under an insurance system, you are sandboxed into a medical system the insurance system limits you to. You may get a second or third opinion, but they're not going to differ much as the opinions come from a particular general school of medicine. And this school of medicine is heavily influenced by commercial interests whose power goes along the lines of "if you can't beat them, join them." And that's where many sharp minds who enter the medical profession end up rotting as they take part in a system where job security comes first before patient interests.

While the ER has saved many lives and it is invaluable, being so has made it into a center for overbilling/overcharging excesses. While you attempt to stay an outpatient to save you from the horrendous cost of hospital stays, you find that one hour of being in the ER for a little wound that applying low-cost urea can end up costing you thousands. And the legal system's weight on medical care is not helping, as the ER personnel will prick you all over your body to make sure they won't be sued for failing to make a test that possibly could be grounds for a lawsuit.

The hospital system, because of its monopolistic/oligopolistic status, is not incentivized to find the most cost-effective methods of care. An example is the hospital's use of pure oxygen (albeit with air) instead of carbogen in assisted ventilation of patients. They also use blue-light on babies with jaundice, even when it's proven that isn't the right method. They stick to methods that prolong recovery at best, and bring a slow but certain death slowly at worst.

 

[Dennis]

The current ruling dogma in medicine is that human longevity is most likely genetically determined, and seems to be capped at about 125 years. The main arguments given in favor if this hypothesis are the apparently exponentially rising odds of dying with increasing age and the fact that no (officially) confirmed cases of human longevity beyond the age of 125 are known to science. Both of these claims do not survive closer scrutiny. People living well-beyond 125 years of age are known to science, with the most recent case shown below.
Shirali Muslimov - Wikipedia

Peat also mentioned this a few times and attributed the longevity of these people to their diet low in PUFA and living in an environment of high CO2.
Fats, functions and malfunctions.
"...Animals that naturally have a relatively low level of the highly unsaturated fats in their tissues have the greatest longevity. For example, the naked mole rate has a life expectancy of more than 28 years, about 9 times as long as other rodents of a similar size. Only about 2% to 6% of its phospholipids contain DHA, while about 27% to 57% of the phospholipids of mice contain DHA Mitchell, et al., 2007). The famously long-lived people of Azerbaijan eat a diet containing a low ratio of unsaturated to saturated fats, emphasizing fruits, vegetables, and dairy products (Grigorov, et al., 1991)."

Other cases of extreme longevity have been reported in China, Tibet, and among the Native Indians living on high plateaus in the Andes. However, these examples are rejected by scientists as "impossible" and thus not well publicized in the Western world.
The study below provided evidence against the first claim of the dogma mentioned above - i.e. the fact that the odds of dying increase exponentially with age. The study found that while the odds do increase for the first 105 years, after that they flatten out and even decrease slightly, which suggests there is no hard limit to human longevity. While this study was a statistical analysis and not something that focused on the biological origins of longevity, it matches well with Peat's opinion on the topic.
https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/the-travis-corner.21611/page-22#post-312475
"...I have never seen evidence that they ((our bodies)) contain any principle of mortality, and in recent years the suspicion that we contain all the equipment needed for perpetual renewal, given the right circumstances, is seeming to be increasingly plausible."

Now, the next step in the right direction for the authors of the study below would be to get out of the mentality that this extreme longevity is genetic and instead link it with metabolic intensity, diet, and lack of chronic stress. Unfortunately, extending human lifespan goes against the official policy and budgetary calculations of pretty much every nation on Earth. So, I would not expect studies on easy/cheap interventions for extending lifespan indefinitely to be well-received or ever funded officially.

The plateau of human mortality: Demography of longevity pioneers
Study Suggests There's No Limit on Longevity, But Getting Super Old Is Still Tough | Smart News | Smithsonian

"...According to a controversial study released in 2016, which analyzed data from 40 different countries, the average person could make it to 115 with the right genes and interventions, and a few genetic superstars would be able to make it to 125. But that was it, they argued. There was a wall of mortality that medicine and positive thinking simply cannot overcome. But not everyone is convinced by that data. That’s why for the new paper in the journal Science, researchers looked at the lifespans of 3,836 people in Italy who reached the age of 105 or older between 2009 and 2015, with their ages verified by birth certificates. What they found is that the Gompertz law goes a little haywire around the century mark. According to a press release, a 90 year old woman has a 15 percent chance of dying in the next year, and an estimated six years left to live. At age 95, the chance of dying per year jumps to 24 percent. At the age of 105, the chance of dying makes another leap to 50 percent. But then, surprisingly, it levels off, even past 110. In other words, at least statistically, each year some lucky person could flip the coin of life, and if it comes up heads every time, they could live beyond 115 or 125. “Our data tell us that there is no fixed limit to the human lifespan yet in sight,” senior author Kenneth Wachter of UC Berkeley says in the release. “Not only do we see mortality rates that stop getting worse with age, we see them getting slightly better over time.”"

This website: Michael Rose's 55 essentially says that if we switch to a pre-agricultural diet we might end up not aging.

 

[managing]

The current ruling dogma in medicine is that human longevity is most likely genetically determined, and seems to be capped at about 125 years. The main arguments given in favor if this hypothesis are the apparently exponentially rising odds of dying with increasing age and the fact that no (officially) confirmed cases of human longevity beyond the age of 125 are known to science. Both of these claims do not survive closer scrutiny. People living well-beyond 125 years of age are known to science, with the most recent case shown below.
Shirali Muslimov - Wikipedia

Peat also mentioned this a few times and attributed the longevity of these people to their diet low in PUFA and living in an environment of high CO2.
Fats, functions and malfunctions.
"...Animals that naturally have a relatively low level of the highly unsaturated fats in their tissues have the greatest longevity. For example, the naked mole rate has a life expectancy of more than 28 years, about 9 times as long as other rodents of a similar size. Only about 2% to 6% of its phospholipids contain DHA, while about 27% to 57% of the phospholipids of mice contain DHA Mitchell, et al., 2007). The famously long-lived people of Azerbaijan eat a diet containing a low ratio of unsaturated to saturated fats, emphasizing fruits, vegetables, and dairy products (Grigorov, et al., 1991)."

Other cases of extreme longevity have been reported in China, Tibet, and among the Native Indians living on high plateaus in the Andes. However, these examples are rejected by scientists as "impossible" and thus not well publicized in the Western world.
The study below provided evidence against the first claim of the dogma mentioned above - i.e. the fact that the odds of dying increase exponentially with age. The study found that while the odds do increase for the first 105 years, after that they flatten out and even decrease slightly, which suggests there is no hard limit to human longevity. While this study was a statistical analysis and not something that focused on the biological origins of longevity, it matches well with Peat's opinion on the topic.
https://raypeatforum.com/community/threads/the-travis-corner.21611/page-22#post-312475
"...I have never seen evidence that they ((our bodies)) contain any principle of mortality, and in recent years the suspicion that we contain all the equipment needed for perpetual renewal, given the right circumstances, is seeming to be increasingly plausible."

Now, the next step in the right direction for the authors of the study below would be to get out of the mentality that this extreme longevity is genetic and instead link it with metabolic intensity, diet, and lack of chronic stress. Unfortunately, extending human lifespan goes against the official policy and budgetary calculations of pretty much every nation on Earth. So, I would not expect studies on easy/cheap interventions for extending lifespan indefinitely to be well-received or ever funded officially.

The plateau of human mortality: Demography of longevity pioneers
Study Suggests There's No Limit on Longevity, But Getting Super Old Is Still Tough | Smart News | Smithsonian

"...According to a controversial study released in 2016, which analyzed data from 40 different countries, the average person could make it to 115 with the right genes and interventions, and a few genetic superstars would be able to make it to 125. But that was it, they argued. There was a wall of mortality that medicine and positive thinking simply cannot overcome. But not everyone is convinced by that data. That’s why for the new paper in the journal Science, researchers looked at the lifespans of 3,836 people in Italy who reached the age of 105 or older between 2009 and 2015, with their ages verified by birth certificates. What they found is that the Gompertz law goes a little haywire around the century mark. According to a press release, a 90 year old woman has a 15 percent chance of dying in the next year, and an estimated six years left to live. At age 95, the chance of dying per year jumps to 24 percent. At the age of 105, the chance of dying makes another leap to 50 percent. But then, surprisingly, it levels off, even past 110. In other words, at least statistically, each year some lucky person could flip the coin of life, and if it comes up heads every time, they could live beyond 115 or 125. “Our data tell us that there is no fixed limit to the human lifespan yet in sight,” senior author Kenneth Wachter of UC Berkeley says in the release. “Not only do we see mortality rates that stop getting worse with age, we see them getting slightly better over time.”"

Before I start, I want to make it clear that what I am about to say does not disprove their hypothesis.

However, the statistics of declining mortality have a very obvious potential explanation. That is, what if genetics really does account for most of longevity? The 105+ mark could simply be a gap. Genetics are digital (either/or) and therefore would not be expected to be incremental nor to necessarily follow a regular distribution.

In fact, any digital extrinsic factor could explain it. For example, once somebody reaches a precious age (such as 105) perhaps they are provided greater care and resources by family and community?

Again, none of this is a clear refutation of their hypothesis. But similarly, their hypothesis is far from proven . . .

 

[tara]

There were many alternatives in the US before medicine was forcibly 'unified' leaving us with no alternative to the current hospital system.

I'm not in the US, I don't think I'm the only non-USer in the thread, and I wasn't talking about the US system specifically. I certainly don't think either the current US hospital system or the others we've been involved with are free of major issues. My point was that even so, staying out of hospital is not always a life-saving choice - there are good things that can and do happen in hospitals regularly, along with some unfortunate ones.
Of course not needing to go to hospital is good.

 

[yerrag]

I'm not in the US, I don't think I'm the only non-USer in the thread, and I wasn't talking about the US system specifically. I certainly don't think either the current US hospital system or the others we've been involved with are free of major issues. My point was that even so, staying out of hospital is not always a life-saving choice - there are good things that can and do happen in hospitals regularly, along with some unfortunate ones.
Of course not needing to go to hospital is good.

Not needing to go to the hospital is definitely a big, big plus. I know people who are so dependent of the hospital system that their reflex action is to go to the ER. The thinking is that doctors and hospitals know best, and they don't want to take any chances. Even for a slight fever. It pays to know enough to know when to go to the hospital and when not to. I admit I have to be nudged to go to the hospital, and it's a sibling who would make that decision for my parents, and have been proven right.

But I'm old enough to remember how simple it was to go to the ER then. Nowadays, it is a big process - poking needles left and right, x-rays galore. I prefer a juju man at the ER, if I have a choice lol

 

[GutFeeling]

Is quinine long-term good?

 

[tankasnowgod]

Before I start, I want to make it clear that what I am about to say does not disprove their hypothesis.

However, the statistics of declining mortality have a very obvious potential explanation. That is, what if genetics really does account for most of longevity? The 105+ mark could simply be a gap. Genetics are digital (either/or) and therefore would not be expected to be incremental nor to necessarily follow a regular distribution.

In fact, any digital extrinsic factor could explain it. For example, once somebody reaches a precious age (such as 105) perhaps they are provided greater care and resources by family and community?

Again, none of this is a clear refutation of their hypothesis. But similarly, their hypothesis is far from proven . . .

I think genetics can play a role, but an indirect one. As an example, think about hereditary hemocrhomatosis. Most people who have the genetic combination for iron loading will indeed live a shorter lifespan, and likely suffer from more degenerative diseases.

However, if that same person tracks their iron levels and uses techniques to control them, say phlebotomy or diet, then that person has negated the problem. It wasn't the genetics per se, it was the excess levels of iron in the body.

The Packers fan Jim Becker is a great example of this- Love of Football Saves Fan From 'Celtic' Curse

His father, who apparently had the same condition, died at 43, but Jim was 80 years old at the time the article was written. Donating blood basically erased the effects of any genetic limitation on life, and he lived almost twice as long as his father (he might still be alive, and I haven't seen an update.)

 

[managing]

I think genetics can play a role, but an indirect one. As an example, think about hereditary hemocrhomatosis. Most people who have the genetic combination for iron loading will indeed live a shorter lifespan, and likely suffer from more degenerative diseases.

However, if that same person tracks their iron levels and uses techniques to control them, say phlebotomy or diet, then that person has negated the problem. It wasn't the genetics per se, it was the excess levels of iron in the body.

The Packers fan Jim Becker is a great example of this- Love of Football Saves Fan From 'Celtic' Curse

His father, who apparently had the same condition, died at 43, but Jim was 80 years old at the time the article was written. Donating blood basically erased the effects of any genetic limitation on life, and he lived almost twice as long as his father (he might still be alive, and I haven't seen an update.)

I believe RPs position is that interventions, such as the one you describe, can be made that mol level the playing field. Its essentially correct, imho, unless of course there is a "time clock" gene, which some posit. I don't know enough about the topic to have an opinion. My point was really just that there are lots of possible alternative explanations to the authors' point.

 

[mt_dreams]

I'm not so much against putting all specialties under one roof. Whether or not it's under one roof matters less as much as whether there are competing methods for the patient to choose from. Currently, if you are under an insurance system, you are sandboxed into a medical system the insurance system limits you to. You may get a second or third opinion, but they're not going to differ much as the opinions come from a particular general school of medicine. And this school of medicine is heavily influenced by commercial interests whose power goes along the lines of "if you can't beat them, join them." And that's where many sharp minds who enter the medical profession end up rotting as they take part in a system where job security comes first before patient interests.

While the ER has saved many lives and it is invaluable, being so has made it into a center for overbilling/overcharging excesses. While you attempt to stay an outpatient to save you from the horrendous cost of hospital stays, you find that one hour of being in the ER for a little wound that applying low-cost urea can end up costing you thousands. And the legal system's weight on medical care is not helping, as the ER personnel will prick you all over your body to make sure they won't be sued for failing to make a test that possibly could be grounds for a lawsuit.

The hospital system, because of its monopolistic/oligopolistic status, is not incentivized to find the most cost-effective methods of care. An example is the hospital's use of pure oxygen (albeit with air) instead of carbogen in assisted ventilation of patients. They also use blue-light on babies with jaundice, even when it's proven that isn't the right method. They stick to methods that prolong recovery at best, and bring a slow but certain death slowly at worst.

I agree that the capitalistic mindset that creates monopolies has created cost levels that do not fit our current structure of life. one of the ramifications of universal health care is that it wipes out all non ama practices. It difficult to find naturalistic medicine in Canada, but I could easily (at least 5-10 years ago) find such practices in the US. without patent laws, the health care system would be a lot more honest.... then again capitalism birthed many quackery claims, so making money with health seems to be at the root of the issue

Regarding housing all in one building. keep in mind that the sick and/or dying are the easiest to spread viruses & bacteria. these people should be no where near people being cut open, with open wounds, or the whole birthing process. I wont even get into the vibrational aspects of dying vs being born, and the vibrations of people visiting each of those, but they should not be taking place on a large spectrum so close to each other.

 

[yerrag]

I agree that the capitalistic mindset that creates monopolies has created cost levels that do not fit our current structure of life. one of the ramifications of universal health care is that it wipes out all non ama practices. It difficult to find naturalistic medicine in Canada, but I could easily (at least 5-10 years ago) find such practices in the US. without patent laws, the health care system would be a lot more honest.... then again capitalism birthed many quackery claims, so making money with health seems to be at the root of the issue

I don't ever think it will ever get better for us, anywhere in the world. Quack medicine accepted as evidence-based and standard medicine will always win, simply because quack medicine makes the most money, money that lines the pockets of medical associations, as well as provide strength to media ads and industry promotions, and all-expenses paid seminars in top tourist destinations for medical practitioners. Honest medicine does not attempt to fleece patients, and the curative and healing outcome only makes it impossible to keep profiting from recurring incomes from patients who have healed for good. The best medicine will always be relegated to the fringe, money it does not have the revenue and profit stream to compete with the blockbuster drug budgets of pharmaceutical companies.

Look around, even naturopaths have their own snake oil to sell. Have you ever met a naturopath that doesn't prescribe fish oil, for example? It is for this reason that the best medicine is prevention. But prevention is not an easy thing unless one has access to good medical science, and has the ability and the perseverance to assimilate this information and use it in a healthy lifestyle. Considering that most of the world are programmed to accept the teachings of experts who are only as good as what they're taught to obtain a degree, that leaves very few people, perhaps the 1% of 1%, to know to live free from drugs, surgical procedures, and implants. Consider yourself lucky to be in this top echelon of mankind.

It doesn't matter if you can't find alternatives, it matters more if you can live a good life without needing them so much.

By the way, if you start to know well enough, do not try to make it a business to help others publicly, as hounds will be sent to put you down. Instead, help your immediate family and friends, as you know in this closed-knit cell you can trust these people not to sue you and make you penniless.

Regarding housing all in one building. keep in mind that the sick and/or dying are the easiest to spread viruses & bacteria. these people should be no where near people being cut open, with open wounds, or the whole birthing process. I wont even get into the vibrational aspects of dying vs being born, and the vibrations of people visiting each of those, but they should not be taking place on a large spectrum so close to each other.

I think if the right kind of medicine is practiced, proximity would not be that much of a concern. Whereas separating a type of hospital from another would only be an exercise in futility if the wrong kind of medicine is practiced.

 

[kayumochi]

Think everyone died young in ancient societies? Think again
Think everyone died young in ancient societies? Think again | Aeon Ideas

 

[tankasnowgod]

I agree that the capitalistic mindset that creates monopolies has created cost levels that do not fit our current structure of life. one of the ramifications of universal health care is that it wipes out all non ama practices.

It is NOT a "capitalistic mindset" that has created monopolies, or more accurately, oligopolies that operate like a cartel.. It is top down authoritarianism, be that from government (like Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, the USDA), psuedo-government organizations (like World Health Organization, and AMA) or huge corporations, like insurance companies. The ACA, which was a step toward Universal Health Care, made things worse.

Truthfully, in the US, we haven't had free market healthcare since at least the 30's. Possibly longer. I personally believe that socializing the cost of medicine has lead to expensive, ineffective, and downright harmful "cures," as the payee is completely separated from the recipient of treatment.

 

[mt_dreams]

It is NOT a "capitalistic mindset" that has created monopolies, or more accurately, oligopolies that operate like a cartel.. It is top down authoritarianism, be that from government (like Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, the USDA), psuedo-government organizations (like World Health Organization, and AMA) or huge corporations, like insurance companies. The ACA, which was a step toward Universal Health Care, made things worse.

Truthfully, in the US, we haven't had free market healthcare since at least the 30's. Possibly longer. I personally believe that socializing the cost of medicine has lead to expensive, ineffective, and downright harmful "cures," as the payee is completely separated from the recipient of treatment.

I've noticed a trend over the last couple of years whenever I use the term capitalistic. I would imagine this has something to do with the current state of politics in the US & many other countries. Both the left & right are capitalistic, the only thing that differs is their vocabulary, and breakdown of capitalism. Even before socialism was even a word, the people were ruled by authority. The image of the ruler has moved from robes, to crowns, to corporations, to suits (law & politics), to a mixture of the latter two, but the idea has always been the same. capitalistic mindset is an idea, not a party platform. Rockefeller based purely on capitalistic ideology (both of himself, & those which he bought out/trampled) created a monopoly. nothing changed for the common man b/w Rockefeller the monopoly, and the authoritative fragmenting of his empire, at which he was still left holding the whip... by design

so capitalistic, as in, taking advantage of the cattle. the ama has been around for 200 years. they had a capitalistic goal in mind, that to take over and rule the industry. no matter which party has been in office, they have marched on. this is b/c they (the corporations & associations) control both options, and the mere differences are only to create a perception of difference. It's the same capitalistic framework that the sciences have with regard to religion. monkey sees power, monkey wants that power, monkey tries to get said power. take a look at the world today... it's filed with salesmen, be it the arts, the business world, the religious world, the educational world, the cyber world (ex: utube, instagram), etc. everyone's a pusherman. everybody wants the crown of their industry, and will do whatever it takes. once they have it, they will do whatever it takes to keep it, and milk it for everything it's worth.

corporations have now for example, put preempted laws into place where states cannot fight gmo laws, cannot film inside slaughter houses, just to name a few. it doesn't matter what authoritative entity is progressing these actions, it's the capitalistic parasite that is the driving force for remaining in control of the power, money, and choices we have. psychopaths always seem to end up with most of the pie. The war-games of industry leaders are mindbogglingly. imo, other than a max cap on human income, along with no laws around this (trusts, tax havens, etc), this will always be the outcome of industry.... hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[mt_dreams]

@yerrag

Yes it's a crazy world we live in. co-operation is the only way out of this. we've got to start small, like you said family & friends. eventually, there will be a time when all these pods can bound together and make some noise. martyrdom will not cut it these days.

the first 2 verses of marley's patience song.
verse 1:
Some of the smartest dummies
Can't read the language of Egyptian mummies
An' a fly go a moon
And can't find food for the starving tummies
Pay no mind to the youths
Cause it's not like the future depends on it
But save the animals in the zoo
Cause the chimpanzee dem a make big money
This is how the media pillages
On the TV the picture is
Savages in villages
And the scientist still can't explain the pyramids, huh
Evangelists making a living on the videos of ribs of the little kids
Stereotyping the image of the images
And this is what the image is
You buy a khaki pants
And all of a sudden you say a Indiana Jones
An' a thief out gold and thief out the scrolls and even the buried bones
Some of the worst paparazzis I've ever seen and I ever known
Put the worst on display so the world can see
And that's all they will ever show
So the ones in the West
Will never move East
And feel like they could be at home
Dem get tricked by the beast
But a where dem ago flee when the monster is fully grown?
Solomonic linage whe dem still can't defeat and them coulda never clone
My spiritual DNA that print in my soul and I will forever Own Lord

verse 2:
Huh, we born not knowing, are we born knowing all?
We growing wiser, are we just growing tall?
Can you read thoughts? can you read palms?
Huh, can you predict the future? can you see storms, coming?
The Earth was flat if you went too far you would fall off
Now the Earth is round
If the shape change again everybody woulda start laugh
The average man can't prove of most of the things
That he chooses to speak of
And still won't research and find out
The root of the truth that you seek of
Scholars teach in Universities and claim that they're smart and cunning
Tell them find a cure when we sneeze
And that's when their nose start running
And the rich get stitched up, when we get cut
Man a heal dem broken bones in the bush with the wet mud
Can you read signs? can you read stars?
Can you make peace? can you fight war?
Can you milk cows, even though you drive cars? huh
Can you survive? Against all odds, now?

 

[Ras]

It is Written:

"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

Amen.

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
"For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life."

Our construction today differs well from our original constitution. One could be romanced by the idea of the immortality mankind enjoyed before sin, traces of whose legacy abides in our design, for that we have been "...fearfully and wonderfully made" by Jesus Christ. But as Tolkien's prescient Elves realized, the gift of men is death.

 

[yerrag]

@yerrag

Yes it's a crazy world we live in. co-operation is the only way out of this. we've got to start small, like you said family & friends. eventually, there will be a time when all these pods can bound together and make some noise. martyrdom will not cut it these days.

the first 2 verses of marley's patience song.
verse 1:
Some of the smartest dummies
Can't read the language of Egyptian mummies
An' a fly go a moon
And can't find food for the starving tummies
Pay no mind to the youths
Cause it's not like the future depends on it
But save the animals in the zoo
Cause the chimpanzee dem a make big money
This is how the media pillages
On the TV the picture is
Savages in villages
And the scientist still can't explain the pyramids, huh
Evangelists making a living on the videos of ribs of the little kids
Stereotyping the image of the images
And this is what the image is
You buy a khaki pants
And all of a sudden you say a Indiana Jones
An' a thief out gold and thief out the scrolls and even the buried bones
Some of the worst paparazzis I've ever seen and I ever known
Put the worst on display so the world can see
And that's all they will ever show
So the ones in the West
Will never move East
And feel like they could be at home
Dem get tricked by the beast
But a where dem ago flee when the monster is fully grown?
Solomonic linage whe dem still can't defeat and them coulda never clone
My spiritual DNA that print in my soul and I will forever Own Lord

verse 2:
Huh, we born not knowing, are we born knowing all?
We growing wiser, are we just growing tall?
Can you read thoughts? can you read palms?
Huh, can you predict the future? can you see storms, coming?
The Earth was flat if you went too far you would fall off
Now the Earth is round
If the shape change again everybody woulda start laugh
The average man can't prove of most of the things
That he chooses to speak of
And still won't research and find out
The root of the truth that you seek of
Scholars teach in Universities and claim that they're smart and cunning
Tell them find a cure when we sneeze
And that's when their nose start running
And the rich get stitched up, when we get cut
Man a heal dem broken bones in the bush with the wet mud
Can you read signs? can you read stars?
Can you make peace? can you fight war?
Can you milk cows, even though you drive cars? huh
Can you survive? Against all odds, now?

Nice lyrics.

Reminds me of when the Bolsheviks used soft palms to tell the bourgeoisie from the peasants. Wonder if just left to their own instead of being executed, they would have faced better outcomes. In a post-apocalyptic world, it's not just rough palms but useable minds free from abject programming that would survive.

Nice to stay grounded with reality, and not the mish mash we are fed with.

 

[ecstatichamster]

Uh...lifespan? Limited? Seems like it is...

 

[tankasnowgod]

I've noticed a trend over the last couple of years whenever I use the term capitalistic. I would imagine this has something to do with the current state of politics in the US & many other countries. Both the left & right are capitalistic, the only thing that differs is their vocabulary, and breakdown of capitalism. Even before socialism was even a word, the people were ruled by authority. The image of the ruler has moved from robes, to crowns, to corporations, to suits (law & politics), to a mixture of the latter two, but the idea has always been the same. capitalistic mindset is an idea, not a party platform. Rockefeller based purely on capitalistic ideology (both of himself, & those which he bought out/trampled) created a monopoly. nothing changed for the common man b/w Rockefeller the monopoly, and the authoritative fragmenting of his empire, at which he was still left holding the whip... by design

Well, my disagreement with you boils down to the definition of the word "capitalism." According to dictionary.com, the definition is -

1. an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production,distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

By that definition, "capitalism" hasn't existed in the United States in the past century. The use of the word "capitalism" is moving away from that definition colloquially, and I'm finding it has less and less meaning. So, getting away from that word, I am very pro free market, and over the past century, the markets in the US have been sliding away from freedom, to greater and greater centralized control.

As to the points I bolded... the modern left isn't capitalistic in the slightest. They are full on socialists at this point, and are outright rejecting the ideas of free market and capitalism. People on the right at the very least pay lip service to these ideals, though conviction varies greatly. Some are ONLY paying lip service, while others truly do believe and fight for these ideals.

As for the idea of the Rockefellers being capitalist..... that's laughable. They are the absolute antithesis of capitalism. They want to centralize and control the world... with The Rockefellers being one of the main controllers at the head, of course. That is why The Trilateral Commission was founded in the first place. The Rockefeller's present themselves as capitalist, but they envision themselves as Socialist rulers in the image of Stalin, though with a far, far, far lower body count.

 

[ecstatichamster]

capitalism would be great if someone tried it.

As you say @tankasnowgod we are in a situation where our economy is mostly a corporate fascist one, run for the benefit of giant corporations and wealthy families. It has always been thus. And "democracy" is the worst system as it encourages EVERYONE to try to steal from everyone else.

It is a "soak the rich and the well off and the producers" system so that vast numbers of "voters" can sponge.

Drug companies use their privileged position to capture and control the FDA, and this goes back through history as a normal feature of "regulation".

Ray is very, very misguided in his political beliefs and in this, I am not disappointed because he is only my health guru not my politics and economics guru.

Anyway, gosh, this thread is supposed to be about lifespan, LOL.