I think we will discover that the human mind isn't capable of dealing with a lifespan beyond a hundred years. Not only will you become socially displaced in the extreme but the amount of personal loss from the deaths of friends and family would become unbearable.
Shit, it's already a sad state for 80-year-olds who remember the early 1900's and World War II who are now watching kids get body piercings, face tattoos and plastic surgery.
That's all we need is a bunch of 200-year-olds with jobs and mid-life crisis. Get my fucking gun because I will stop this insanity myself. The human quest for immortality is fundamentally flawed because we evolved with built in obsolescence.
-420
[snapback]38043[/snapback]
Well if everyone were living until 400, everything you said wouldn't be a problem.
Well if everyone were living until 400, everything you said wouldn't be a problem.
[snapback]38044[/snapback]
That's like saying everyone will live to 70 because it's below the average life expectancy. What about cancer, accidents, flesh eating bacteria, violent crimes and war? Who's ready to sit through around 6 or 7 wars a century as their ever growing extended family get killed off by the dozens?
And are you really saying that if everyone lived to 400 there would be no problems with overpopulation, environmental impact, job availability and social security?
-420
Talk about over population...
[snapback]38031[/snapback]
Oh well now you're listing real problems...Social security would be in the dumpster. It basically is now for Americans. The only thing saving Social Security from total meltdown in the States is the fact that you people are eating yourselves to a lower life expectancy rate :P
Anywho, I'm coming back from the dead when I die, as a psychopathic lich.
[snapback]38056[/snapback]
No, that's what you came back as this time. You need to try something different next time.
-420
You need to try something different next time.[snapback]38058[/snapback]
This (view attachment) is how it probably will turn out, the evil hellmasterhell from his tower killing you with his appearance.
- Mel
[attachment deleted by admin]
No, that's what you came back as this time. You need to try something different next time.
-420
[snapback]38058[/snapback]
Nah, I like it this way. Plus, I have empathy this time around, so it will be a little different. :blink:
This (view attachment) is how it probably will turn out, the evil hellmasterhell from his tower killing you with his appearance.
- Mel
[snapback]38061[/snapback]
hehe good one....
Anyway dunno living 400 years might be neat it would be nice to see the world evolving, see the new technologies etc....
on the other hand it would be hard to keep track of everything to remember everything can a human brain retain information for like 200 years??
Overpopulation of the world would also be a problem...
Meh just like Mo said
Screw all of you. I'm living till 600 with or without you all.
Damn, Tea-cup beat me to the encouragement of cell growth leading to cancer idea!
-420
[snapback]38163[/snapback]
Nooo. Kill my cells! Kill them allll
It would likely not help people with a history of canser for long. But they would likely live long enough to see a cure. And mutation's are extremely rare. And are also caused by things as opposed to just popping up out of no where.
But anyway, you didnt explain why you disagree realy. Whats your input on the subject? perhaps some enlightenment on your own theorys on it?
[snapback]38173[/snapback]
Cancer is something for people who don't take good care of themselves, the healthiest people rarely get it. "mutations are extremely rare." Rarer yet if you're in good shape and taking good care of yourself.
Cancer is something for people who don't take good care of themselves, the healthiest people rarely get it. "mutations are extremely rare." Rarer yet if you're in good shape and taking good care of yourself.
[snapback]38186[/snapback]
Bull, cancer can be caused by environmental factors completely out of an individual's control. It doesn't matter how healthy they are or how well they take care of themselves.
-420
Something like 1 in 4 will develop one type of cancer or another.
[snapback]38188[/snapback]
I would say that's a conservative estimate. I predict, starting with the aging Baby Boomers, we'll see something more like 1 in 2 people getting some type of cancer.
-420
I would say that's a conservative estimate. I predict, starting with the aging Baby Boomers, we'll see something more like 1 in 2 people getting some type of cancer.
-420
[snapback]38190[/snapback]
Let's just hope they are able to cure it shortly. Lord knows researchers are getting plenty of funding.
Let's just hope they are able to cure it shortly. Lord knows researchers are getting plenty of funding.
[snapback]38191[/snapback]
On this point I have to agree with Denis Leary: No Cure for Cancer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248752/)
However, that can also be taken as a statement instead of a fact.
As far as I'm concerned, cancer is the "built in obsolescence" of life. The catch-all for those ambitious or unlucky enough stumble upon immortality. Unlike viruses and bacteria (which are just organisms), cancer is a kind of biological self-destruct button for conditions that have become too hostile, be it age, genetics or environment.
-420
I call it "Common Sence".[snapback]38193[/snapback]
common sense
noun.
"Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment."[/li][/list]Definitely not based on specialized knowledge. And I'm probably born on Mars. ^_^
I apologize for my not constructive post, I snapped.
- Mel
I apologize for my not constructive post, I snapped.
- Mel
[snapback]38203[/snapback]
It's a valid point and that is always constructive.
-420
Bull, cancer can be caused by environmental factors completely out of an individual's control. It doesn't matter how healthy they are or how well they take care of themselves.
-420
[snapback]38187[/snapback]
I highly disagree. I'd put money on someone who's obese and unhealthy having those "environmental factors" affect them faster, easier, and probably worse than someone who's healthy and in shape. I've also heard reports of people who have gotten through cancer without treatment, simply by changing their lifestyle and being healthier after already getting cancer, and I don't just mean eating a little better, but a complete change of attitude, fitness, and health in general. This is after the fact.
We continue to nurse our babys, these deseases and conditions we created.
Watch "What the bleep do we know" there is a section on how water was able to react to many different things one of which is written language.
Lets use muscle tissue to emphisise my other theory;
You lift weights, adding more and more resistance as time goes by. What happens? muscle mass increases to cope with the new stress.
Now, if we where to look at cell's in the same maner. If you take drugs your entire life (Use mechanicle arms instead of your own) your cells will weaken (Muscle mass will decrease).
Now, i'm not saying lets all get our cells bench pressing. But, letting them work there problems out on there own will strengthen them. Obviously if your condition is serious its a good idea to seek help, but if your whole system is strong enough odds are you wont ever experience the serious.
If I get a headache its gone in under a minute, if I get a cold it dont last more then a few nose blowings. Usualy an hour max, most of the time half that. Ive suffered from lymphadenopathy (Swollen Lymph Nodes) or "lymphadenitis". The 'Nodes' in question where my Tonsils (Which they dont remove now because aparently its a defence against Aids, thats funny on a few levels) I couldnt breath, so I was wizzed off to the hospital.
The doctor opened my air way and fed a tube down my throat all while I was concious (I refused any IV's). Then proceeded to examine me and took a blood sample. The nurse checked on me often, He returned later (Around an hour) By the time he got back I was choking on the tube in my throat, he removed it and I was breathing fine. He examined me again and stood there seemingly baffled.
<skiping a few other tests>
He took yet another blood sample about 2 hours later. And returned an additional hour after that. Now this doctor was rather cryptic, but he seemed confused. He said he had thought it was canser, he was infact rather confident it was. But he was confused that id made a seemingly complete recovery in a little over 4 hours.
All in all I was healed from it in around a day.
No sickness I ever get lasts any longer than this, and that doctor still gets me in there for tests here and there. Never finding anything, which only serves to fuel his curiosity.
I believe people over think things way way to much, for example "Fat" I'm so sick and fucking tired of reading "90% fat free" there aint any fucking fat in anything. Unless they are cutting the fat from an animal and mixing it right in with our food. Fat is a biproduct created by the body when we consume more energy than is required. Our body will stock pile it thinking it will need it. (Well, it doesnt know, your in control)
Here's a little example of an animal using this function to its advantage:
A bear will hunt and eat food (more than it needs) before the winter cycle. The bear will put on alot of weight in this time and will eventualy look something like every Heffer you see walking down the road. Now, then it does something else, it digs a hole (or finds one) and hibernates and doesnt eat a thing for that entire winter cycle. And then when spring pops up the bear emerges, without a ounce of fat on it. And proceeds to look for breakfast (This being a literal use for the word Break - Fast (To fast)).
Now, if a human eats more than his share of food (Doesnt fucking matter what it is!) you will gain weight. Because your body will think your going to need it and stock pile the energy in the form of a jelly like substance we know as "fat".
Simple equasion(The models have it right.. well.. nearly):
If you have no problem stuffing food in your head. But you DO have a problem with the weight you gain. You will have to sacrifice, and that means you will have to be prepared to do the exact opposite to what you did.
Think of that fat bastard that got skinny eating subway, know why? Who the fuck can afford to gorge themselves on that stuff? Probably had it once a day..
Few equasions:
Eat shitloads - Move very little
Eat nothing - Move alot
Now, I dont suggest starving yourself. But a fat man listening to his gut is stupidity. Eat a SMALL breakfast and you will have enough energy for the entire day. (Drink water) It will be a chore, but this is one weight loss scheme that will work. And I dont want any money off you.
I call it "Common Sence".
Another one:
Steam train is sitting in the station, breaks on, driver shoveling coal under the boiler. (Shoving food in the trains head)
The pressure builds as the fire burns. He gets to the point where even if he released the break and allowed the pressure to release and move the train, the pressure released would not be enough to releave the boiler of stress.
The driver shovels more coal in, The boiler expands, more coal, the boiler explodes.
Now, humans dont expload(?). But our 'Boiler' does expand.
My appologies, just a little share time.
[snapback]38193[/snapback]
I agree with you. I mean, you have to admit there are people BORN with health problems/diseases in which case it's not so cut-and-dry. However, I do agree with you on most points. I myself generally refuse any pain-killers or any other drugs men made into a little tablet and stuck into a bottle, as well as illegal drugs and alcohol. The most I do is take a pain killer on a very rare occasion if I'm having a tooth-ache... because I can't fucking stand those. I can handle a head-ache or anything else... but those annoy the shit out of me.
The reason losing weight is so hard for people, is because people find something to help them get by, and for alot of people it's food. They use food as a way of handling their problems, and then have a hard time moderating how much they eat, especially if they've lost track of how much they need to eat, and eat alot to take care of stress and other issues. Other people drink and use drugs, some start fights... some are adrenaline junkies, cutting themselves or jumping from high heights and doing crazy shit to get their blood pumping, so to speak. Alot of people do more than one, video games and music can also be used, especially so if you're the one making the music. Even working out is a way of handling problems, except that way, is probably the best one. =)
I highly disagree. I'd put money on someone who's obese and unhealthy having those "environmental factors" affect them faster, easier, and probably worse than someone who's healthy and in shape.[snapback]38209[/snapback]
And you'd lose that money to me just like always.
According to www.medicinenet.com (http://www.medicinenet.com/cancer_causes/article.htm)
Cancer Risk Factors
  * What are cancer risk factors?
     o Growing older
     o Tobacco
     o Sunlight
     o Ionizing radiation
     o Certain chemicals and other substances
     o Some viruses and bacteria
     o Certain hormones
     o Family history of cancer
     o Alcohol
     o Poor diet, lack of physical activity, or being overweight
So, of those cancer risk factors listed, 7 of the 10 are environmental factors. If all things are equal, environmental factors appear to have a much higher chance of causing cancer than something like not being fit.
As far as environment having more of an affect on a person who isn't fit, well it is just common sense that a combination of any of those factors increase the likelyhood of developing cancer. But, judging by the list, it is much more likely to be a combination of environmental factors.
Also they listed all of the ones you mentioned at the bottom as a single factor (which I find really funny and now I laugh at you).
-420
And you'd lose that money to me just like always.
According to www.medicinenet.com (http://www.medicinenet.com/cancer_causes/article.htm)
So, of those cancer risk factors listed, 7 of the 10 are environmental factors. If all things are equal, environmental factors appear to have a much higher chance of causing cancer than something like not being fit.
As far as environment having more of an affect on a person who isn't fit, well it is just common sense that a combination of any of those factors increase the likelyhood of developing cancer. But, judging by the list, it is much more likely to be a combination of environmental factors.
Also they listed all of the ones you mentioned at the bottom as a single factor (which I find really funny and now I laugh at you).
-420
[snapback]38212[/snapback]
Beg to differ.
That doesn't disccredit anything I said at all; all you just did was further prove my point.
I never said environmental factors didn't affect the chance of cancer. I said that some factors, which are right there on your list even, would attribute to it highly. So, I don't understand what you're arguing against, on that point, but that's what you do, I guess.
Now, that's a list of ten factors, out of every single factor one could possibly come up with, completely unrelated or otherwise, the factors I listed are huge in comparison to any not on the list. Each factor is 1/10 is what you're showing, and that makes every factor I listed, a high contributor.
Other substances... I'm sure drugs can be considered substances, and that's choosing poor health. Sure there are environmental substances that can easily contribute, but... I never recall saying there wasn't, or that they wouldn't have a big impact.
Old age leads to poor health, controllable or otherwise; I wasn't arguing what you could control, Xen was. Old age isn't exactly environmental anyway, it's health related.
Viruses and bacteria? If you have poor health, you're more likely to be affected by viruses and bacteria, therefore, more likely to get cancer. That's a pretty easy connection to make, even Xen made that observation.
The last factor is listed like three factors in one. You make it sound like this discredits what I said more because they aren't listed seperately, but I see it as furthering my point. Not sure where you're coming from on that one.
Also, hormones are very often directly impacted by a person's diet and health, as well as their emotions and stress levels. Of course hormones make a difference... their a big part of a person's health, especially in women.
Alcohol is an unhealthy choice.
Tobacco is an unhealthy choice.
Ionizing radiation, no shit. But how many people are living in places with such high amounts of that? This one is probably the most influential factor, but probably the least common cause in most cancer cases.
Sunlight? Ever hear of sunblock, or how about not sitting on the beach all of the time trying to get a tan? Amount of sunlight can easily be seen as a choice. Though there are cases where people of certain skin types are just affected by it more easily and it becomes a large factor even if they don't go out in the sun all the time. But, I never said environmental factors weren't a cause, huh?
If you read my last post better this time, you'll realize I wasn't disagreeing with environmental factors being a cause, but rather, how poor health is a cause, and how poor health will likely hasten the chance of cancer in any circumstances, even if it's only by minutes in a high radiation area for a long period or periods of time. Are you unsure that that's what I said? Allow me to quote:
someone who's obese and unhealthy having those "environmental factors" affect them faster, easier, and probably worse than someone who's healthy and in shape.
I never said environmental factors didn't affect the chance of cancer.
[snapback]38214[/snapback]
Cancer is something for people who don't take good care of themselves, the healthiest people rarely get it. "mutations are extremely rare." Rarer yet if you're in good shape and taking good care of yourself.
[snapback]38186[/snapback]
-420
I said "I call it common sense"
Find your own knowlage, running around spouting facts drawn from a text book written by some one else is useless.
Eienstien's theorys are being disproved all the time, and that is but one example of how people need to find there own answers. But he wouldnt be displeased with that. Such mistakes would only serve to advance him.
[snapback]38234[/snapback]
Sorry but everything you said there is wrong. Passing on Knowledge from one generation to another is the reason Humans are more advanced than elephants.
And please try to list 3 theories of Einsteins that have been proven wrong.
I'm having ice cream and beer for dinner.
[snapback]38229[/snapback]
zomg, sounds good
though im actually eating Sour Patch Kids and chocolate milk.
Passing on Knowledge from one generation to another is the reason Humans are more advanced than elephants.
[snapback]38236[/snapback]
Uh, since when were we more advanced than elephants? They never forget!
-420
Uh, since when were we more advanced than elephants? They never forget!
-420
[snapback]38240[/snapback]
Elephants are quite intelligent. However I believe we have at least a little more brain power.
zomg, sounds good
[snapback]38239[/snapback]
Hope that was sarcastic because that's an awful combination. =S
University of Koblenz - Found particles that have broken the speed of light.
Einstien (unwillingly disproves his own theory - Relativity) - (only source I could find) http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/TrainDisp...Relativity.html (http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/TrainDisprovesRelativity.html)
Here's a source on space/time relativity; http://www.new-science-theory.com/albert-einstein.html (http://www.new-science-theory.com/albert-einstein.html)
I'll list more when I'm not so tired. And what I meant was, dont simply accept what people tell you as fact, find your own answers. You may find they are wrong and how the hell would that advance you or anyone else if you spread false information?
Thought that would be obvious, but hopefully that spells it out.
[snapback]38253[/snapback]
Faster-than-light (also superluminal or FTL) communications and travel refer to the propagation of information or matter faster than the speed of light. "True" FTL, in which matter exceeds the speed of light in its own local region, is considered to be impossible by the physics community because of the special theory of relativity, which prohibits a particle with subluminal velocity to accelerate to, or exceed, the speed of light in a vacuum (special relativity does not forbid the existence of particles that travel faster than light at all times).
In special relativity, while it is impossible to accelerate an object to the speed of light, or for a massive object to move at the speed of light, it is not impossible for an object to exist which always moves faster than light. The hypothetical elementary particles that have this property are called tachyons. Their existence has neither been proven nor disproven, but even so attempts to quantise them show that they may not be used for faster-than-light communication.[12]
And no matter what someone says, Einstein's theories do not belong in a context about false information. The results of his research are clearly visible in our world. His work wasn't completed and can be improved, that is as far as you can go.
- Mel
[snapback]38261[/snapback]
wow I agree with Mel. Crazy.
Hope that was sarcastic because that's an awful combination. =S
[snapback]38242[/snapback]
Nope, a can of Miller and a bowl of caramel moosetracks sounds great right about now.