41–50 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> rich old white dude Why attach race, age, gender, and class to the idea that lifestyle changes are hard? I'm pretty sure everyone finds them hard.
I believe the point wasn't about who finds lifestyle changes to be hard, but who has the disposable cash to pay for medicine instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So does fasting, and it don't cost as much. If a "rich old white dude" could get the health benefits of fasting for a bit of cash, a lot of them are going to pay it. Lifestyle changes are hard, while cash is 'easy' for a significant part of what I imagine to be the target market. EDIT: Apparently I should clarify the "old white dude" part of this. The study in question consisted entirely of "9 white men between 51…
> rich old white dude Why attach race, age, gender, and class to the idea that lifestyle changes are hard? I'm pretty sure everyone finds them hard.
It just dawned on me that getting old and dying is most likely an evolutionary chicken and egg problem. If you didn't get old and die, evolution of your species would grind to a halt. Getting old and dying is required for evolution to transpire. I can't see any reason why it must be an absolute truth.
Genes most definitely do not want to promote evolution in any sense. Since evolution by definition implies the replacement of currently existing genes with new genes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biological immortality in plants and animals isn't unheard of. Take Jelly Fish, they are biologically immortal, been around 500 million years, not to bad. They were the first animals to evolve nervous systems, not sure the timeline of the biological immortality evolution, but they must have continued evolving because there are different species (some have evolved eyes and others not) and I believe all species are bio…
Are you saying there is a floating jelly fish in the ocean that is 500 million years old (‘years old’ in the common parlance of usage)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So does fasting, and it don't cost as much. If a "rich old white dude" could get the health benefits of fasting for a bit of cash, a lot of them are going to pay it. Lifestyle changes are hard, while cash is 'easy' for a significant part of what I imagine to be the target market. EDIT: Apparently I should clarify the "old white dude" part of this. The study in question consisted entirely of "9 white men between 51…
why white and dude? aren't there other kinds of rich people? and wouldn't they also pay?
> The Thymus Regeneration, Immunorestoration and Insulin Mitigation (TRIIM) trial tested 9 white men between 51 and 65 years of age.
Who knows if this set of treatments will work for other demographics? I'd certainly bet it'd work differently for women, given the differences in hormonal balances. (And IIRC there are different recommended steroids for women - since at least one of the drugs in this cocktail was a steroid, I'd think that would come into play)
It just dawned on me that getting old and dying is most likely an evolutionary chicken and egg problem. If you didn't get old and die, evolution of your species would grind to a halt. Getting old and dying is required for evolution to transpire. I can't see any reason why it must be an absolute truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biological immortality in plants and animals isn't unheard of. Take Jelly Fish, they are biologically immortal, been around 500 million years, not to bad. They were the first animals to evolve nervous systems, not sure the timeline of the biological immortality evolution, but they must have continued evolving because there are different species (some have evolved eyes and others not) and I believe all species are bio…
Are you saying there is a floating jelly fish in the ocean that is 500 million years old (‘years old’ in the common parlance of usage)?
It just dawned on me that getting old and dying is most likely an evolutionary chicken and egg problem. If you didn't get old and die, evolution of your species would grind to a halt. Getting old and dying is required for evolution to transpire. I can't see any reason why it must be an absolute truth.
No. You're succumbing to the fallacy of group selection. Evolution operates on a gene-specific level. A trait that maximizes an individual's inclusive genetic fitness at the expense of the species will always out-complete. Genes most definitely do not want to promote evolution in any sense. Since evolution by definition implies the replacement of currently existing genes with new genes.
That is, if a gene's options are "copy into clone" or "copy into 100% optimal genetic superman, with the only common gene being me, left completely untouched", I assume any given gene would "choose" the latter.
Which is to say, presuming a given gene is already helpful and is "core" to the organism's functionality, that gene would see evolution as a helpful service that causes it to end up copied into better-performing descendants, rather than same-performing descendants.
This also serves as a decent explanation of why sexual reproduction persists even in species that can also parthenogenetically reproduce: the "good" genes are betting on being retained, and getting the "bad" genes culled out in the process.
The sample size is so small, that the results are nearly meaningless.