Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The medical myth says the body naturally wears out. It does not repair itself. It's like one of our artificial machines, that must be repaired to keep functioning. So many are getting their joints replaced as they get older, because their natural joints wear out.
And most are taking drugs as they get older, because the medical myth says our bodies have no wisdom. We evolved by chance and most of the DNA is junk. There is no intelligence in the universe, outside of physical brains. THAT is exactly what modern medicine believes. All completely untrue.
Our bodies want to stay healthy into old age. Not everyone can, because there are genetic defects, serious injuries, and their are plenty of environmental toxins. But it is NOT NEARLY AS BAD as what the medical mythology tells us.
If you stay aware of your body, you can avoid most of the joint replacements and the painkillers. Most of the aches and pains are from the modern lifestyle, as you said.
And here comes the nonsensical mumbo jumbo....
Evolution IS by chance....kind of how natural selection works don't you know...
News flash....bodies DO wear out...your joints have no "innate intelligence"....cartilage cannot repair itself even if it "wanted to", when heart muscle is ischemic it is dead...there is no "intelligent repair" possible....when the pancreas stops producing insulin that's it....time to replace the insulin....
Vessels harden as we age...in any society...
Hearts wear out....lungs wear out....kidneys stop functioning....planned obsolescence in humans is REAL
In all this discussion of Longevity, while the average age of death has clearly risen (despite your nonsensical claims to the contrary) LIFESPAN has essentially NEVER changed in human history and despite claims to the contrary is unlikely to change much if at all in the future...
The upper limits of life is around 120.
Staying "aware of your body" doesn't prevent joint replacements, heart attacks, strokes, cancer etc...
Typical "blame the patient" mentality typically espoused by those who have been "fortunate" to avoid any serious illness or disease and "pat themselves on the back" for having "done all the right things"
Here's another NEWS FLASH....NO ONE GETS OUT ALIVE
You may THINK you are doing all the right things but eventually, it won't matter.
I have been practicing medicine for over 25 years and the number of people who have had "bad things happen" despite doing all the right things is staggering...
Clearly it helps to exercise, eat right, not smoke etc....but there is no guarantee doing all those things will get you to 80 with all your limbs, organs and disease free....and it definitely won't matter in the end 'cause we all end up in the ground at some point....
What you provided is not conclusive! As I said, you chose to compare to one time and place, when there are many others you could compare to. And your article did not specify urban vs rural, poor vs prosperous. Things that really matter are not considered. Because the agenda is to show that modern medicine is keeping us alive.
You are an angry advocate for the medical system. I have said, over and over and over, that our medical system does provide some things that some of us sometimes need. But it is extremely limited, and millions are suffering. There are NO simple answers. But what I am doing here is trying to show that there is a mythology. That things can be framed in different ways, and we should try to look beyond those frames.
I chose statistics that COMPARE THE ENTIRETY OF THE US POPULATION !!!!!!! (clearly you didn't bother to look at the link)
It is ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE
I didn't link an "article" , I linked ACTUARIAL DATA that included ALL US populations.....it isn't just "one time and one place".....it is ALL times by every YEAR from 1850 to the present over a WIDE spectrum of people which makes the date extremely powerful...
Pick ANY year on that chart....it still verifies what I have been saying and disproves what you are saying...
I chose statistics that COMPARE THE ENTIRETY OF THE US POPULATION !!!!!!! (clearly you didn't bother to look at the link)
It is ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE
I didn't link an "article" , I linked ACTUARIAL DATA that included ALL US populations.....it isn't just "one time and one place".....it is ALL times by every YEAR from 1850 to the present over a WIDE spectrum of people which makes the date extremely powerful...
Pick ANY year on that chart....it still verifies what I have been saying and disproves what you are saying...
The only "mythology" is in your mind...
It averages them all together. You are too angry to think straight.
It averages them all together. You are too angry to think straight.
I am not angry at all, I am very calm...as I would be speaking to a small child that doesn't understand what I am saying...I find it humorous to be honest....
I know it "averages them all together", that is kind of the POINT and it makes the data more powerful.....
It eliminates variation between rural, urban, suburban etc....do you not understand that???
It is an EXTREMELY large sample size....do you not understand that??
Besides the variations in longevity in THIS country do not vary much by location over time regardless....it is a relatively homogenous sample
I am not angry at all, I am very calm...as I would be speaking to a small child that doesn't understand what I am saying...I find it humorous to be honest....
I know it "averages them all together", that is kind of the POINT and it makes the data more powerful.....
It eliminates variation between rural, urban, suburban etc....do you not understand that???
It is an EXTREMELY large sample size....do you not understand that??
Besides the variations in longevity in THIS country do not vary much by location over time regardless....it is a relatively homogenous sample
You must be kidding. Averaging them all together means we can't really know what the data means. Maybe urban areas were unsanitary and had shorter lifespans. Or they had poverty and malnutrition.
You selected a comparison that came out the way you like.
You are NOT calm. I have never seen you being calm here. It is not possible to analyze such a complicated question if you have an emotional reaction.
It is a fact that you could look at other comparisons and see that people were not sick and disabled with short lived, just because they lacked modern medicine.
You must be kidding. Averaging them all together means we can't really know what the data means. Maybe urban areas were unsanitary and had shorter lifespans. Or they had poverty and malnutrition.
You selected a comparison that came out the way you like.
You are NOT calm. I have never seen you being calm here. It is not possible to analyze such a complicated question if you have an emotional reaction.
It is a fact that you could look at other comparisons and see that people were not sick and disabled with short lived, just because they lacked modern medicine.
So when you are given specifics you say you have to go with general data, when given general data you say it has to be more specific....
Fun game!
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
"Average longevity is calculated by taking the age of death of all the skeletons archaeologists find and averaging them out. There are lots of problems with this method, including the fact that once the wisdom teeth stop growing (around age 35), it's very hard to tell how old someone was when they died 25,000 years ago. The other problem is that for various reasons, a lot of babies died. So the average age of death normally cited (25 or 30) is based on a misleading calculation using suspect data.
In fact, as we detail in the book, once they got through infancy, most people in prehistory lived well into their 60s and even 70s, as foragers do today."
"Average longevity is calculated by taking the age of death of all the skeletons archaeologists find and averaging them out. There are lots of problems with this method, including the fact that once the wisdom teeth stop growing (around age 35), it's very hard to tell how old someone was when they died 25,000 years ago."
The author should have consulted an anthropologist. He completely ignores bone changes with aging, and there are now microscopic techniques that can be used to estimate age at death of older individuals. If it is not possible to determine the ages of adults, how can he say, "... once they got through infancy, most people in prehistory lived well into their 60s and even 70s." He cannot have it both ways.
The method described in the link uses a combination of physical characteristics, both macroscopic and microscopic.
"This method produced successful age estimates on a cohort of 12 donors of age 53–85 yr (7 male, 5 female), where the age of the individual could be approximated within less than ±1 yr."
It is very hard to get you to actually read anything I write. I have explained that comparing longevity now to "then" is complicated and there is no straightforward way of doing it. Health and longevity differed between times and places. And there is no reliable data for the more distant past.
So depending what your agenda is, you can find supporting data. You chose to compare the early industrial era in the US to now.
Plenty of other comparisons have been made, which explains why the articles I linked had very different conclusions from yours.
It is also a fact that contemporary non-industrial societies have been found where people often survive to old age in good health.
It is also known that cancer, heart disease, etc., are diseases of modern industrial societies. NOT simply because other societies were less healthy and people died young.
Yes, it is complicated. That is why there is an entire discipline devoted to it and actuaries have jobs.
What "contemporary non-industrial societies have been found where people often survive to old age in good health"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
The medical myth says the body naturally wears out. It does not repair itself. It's like one of our artificial machines, that must be repaired to keep functioning. So many are getting their joints replaced as they get older, because their natural joints wear out.
And most are taking drugs as they get older, because the medical myth says our bodies have no wisdom. We evolved by chance and most of the DNA is junk. There is no intelligence in the universe, outside of physical brains. THAT is exactly what modern medicine believes. All completely untrue.
Our bodies want to stay healthy into old age. Not everyone can, because there are genetic defects, serious injuries, and their are plenty of environmental toxins. But it is NOT NEARLY AS BAD as what the medical mythology tells us.
If you stay aware of your body, you can avoid most of the joint replacements and the painkillers. Most of the aches and pains are from the modern lifestyle, as you said.
If the human body did not wear out we could, with luck, be immortal. There is a limit to the human lifespan, with Frenchwoman Jeanne Calment reaching the oldest age ever documented, 122 + years.
"Further progress against infectious and chronic diseases may continue boosting average life expectancy, but not maximum lifespan," said Dr. Vijg. "While it's conceivable that therapeutic breakthroughs might extend human longevity beyond the limits we've calculated, such advances would need to overwhelm the many genetic variants that appear to collectively determine the human lifespan. Perhaps resources now being spent to increase lifespan should instead go to lengthening healthspan -- the duration of old age spent in good health."
What you provided is not conclusive! As I said, you chose to compare to one time and place, when there are many others you could compare to. And your article did not specify urban vs rural, poor vs prosperous. Things that really matter are not considered. Because the agenda is to show that modern medicine is keeping us alive.
You are an angry advocate for the medical system. I have said, over and over and over, that our medical system does provide some things that some of us sometimes need. But it is extremely limited, and millions are suffering. There are NO simple answers. But what I am doing here is trying to show that there is a mythology. That things can be framed in different ways, and we should try to look beyond those frames.
Well, show us something conclusive to support your thesis. So far you have not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
It averages them all together. You are too angry to think straight.
Yes, when we are talking about average life expectancy you would expect averages to be discussed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, when heart muscle is ischemic it is dead...there is no "intelligent repair" possible....when the pancreas stops producing insulin that's it....time to replace the insulin....
