91–100 of 146 posts
Food intake is regulated primarily by dietary protein and carbohydrate • Low-protein, high-carbohydrate diets are associated with the longest lifespans • Energy reduction from high-protein diets or dietary dilution does not extend life https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)...
...in mice, which evolved to eat mainly carbohydrates, while humans evolved to eat whatever they could
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did people say that 20 years ago?
Yes we did. I was on transhumanist mailing lists twenty years ago and the exact same comments were being made then as are in this thread today
In 1897, philosopher Paul Janet came up with the model that current moments of time in our lives might be perceived by their "fraction of life lived thus far". This would seem to undermine the value of longevity somewhat: according to this visualization of the idea: https://www.maximiliankiener.com/digitalprojects/time/
Counterpoint: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5Cint_1%5Ewdx%2Fx
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterpoint: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5Cint_1%5Ewdx%2Fx
What does that integral show?
Hence there's still a point to trying to live longer, even if the value of each additional time period decreases.
Anyway, that's if you agree that model! There's a couple of other things I'd consider without even examining it's core assumptions: memory fades over time - time earlier in my life might not contribute as much to my perceived time, as recent time does; what if you spend your early life just getting to the place you want to be (resources, self-development etc)? Extra time in that place could be very valuable!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as the fertility rate is less than 2 children/woman, the total population will still converge even if no one dies. Converge to what? How?
I think they mean the infinite sequence of Σ (generation_n) always converges to some finite number when generation_(n+1) = k * generation_n has k I don’t think that’s a good model, as people who want more offspring will out-reproduce those who don’t, but that’s an argument for another time.
This argument assumes the offspring behaves in the same way as their parents. I don't see that necessarily being true. Even if that is the case, there are legislative solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have kids? I think my view on this radically changed as a father. I feel like my generation sticking around forever would come at the expense of our children (or their children, which by proxy is the same thing). With kids around, there’s just something biologically soothing that tells you “you’ve done your part. You can leave this world at peace”. I know it’s not the same for everyone but on a humankind level…
Those are beliefs from the past. Given time it will change. What human kind is biologically hardwired for is personal survival ability, not leaving the world for youngsters as soon as possible, and those two precepts are mutually exclusive.
Humans excel at surviving as a group, which is a very different - sometimes contrasting - thing.
In 1897, philosopher Paul Janet came up with the model that current moments of time in our lives might be perceived by their "fraction of life lived thus far". This would seem to undermine the value of longevity somewhat: according to this visualization of the idea: https://www.maximiliankiener.com/digitalprojects/time/
Actual substantial longevity - beyond quality of life enhancements - is something I greatly fear. It would change everything. Imagine life with no kids and the joy they bring, a stagnation in all societal structures, no turnover of ideas (loosely quoting "agendas don't die; people die"). I'm sure such a civilization would be very stable, but won't have any extreme sports.
I stopped reading after seeing the cancer/hearth disease chart. It reinforces the belief that most deaths are caused by cancer, while actually it's hearth disease. So if you make a chart, please make it accurate. Therefore I couldn't trust the rest, since it might all be "drawn from the wrist".
If you unify all cancers into one category, then cancer is the top cause. If you split them up into the different types, then heart disease is bigger than any single of them. So you are wrong. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-... Shows heart disease as #1 with 3 million deaths but separates the cancer types. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer Says there were 9.6 million…