Thoughts on the Road to Greater Human Longevity

I recently noticed this scientific commentary, published in a journal not specifically focused on aging. The author is far from the only person to have noticed that priorities in medical research and development do not seem to match up with the major causes of death all that well. It can't hurt to keep on pointing out that research into the most harmful biological processes in the world, meaning the mechanisms that cause aging, is very poorly funded and investigated in comparison to the vast and ongoing toll of death that results. Until aging is defeated, more funding for research into rejuvenation therapies will continue to be the most cost-effective way to improve the human condition.

Longevity means living a long life, nowadays often considered a life span over 85 to 100 years. More and more people reach this limit in modern welfare societies, and citizens aged 90 years and over are said to be the fastest increasing group of people. This is a reality, but what are the background factors for this development? Many scholars think that it is mostly due to societal factors like improved hygiene, proper diet and safer environment. These are important but have mainly established the sine qua non for reaching old age through living past dangerous childhood and earlier adult life and becoming old. In modern societies, reaching longevity is jeopardized more by chronic non-communicable diseases which have replaced infectious diseases as primary causes of morbidity and mortality. By the way, according to the latest Global Health Estimates by the World Health Organization, during the first half of 2020, non-communicable diseases killed approximately 25 times more people than the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Bible, 'The days of our years are threescore years and ten (70 years); and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years (80 years), yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off...'(Psalm 90:10). This well accords with the thoughts of biogerontologists: the warranty period of homo sapiens is 65 years, where after on the average 20 years can be attained, mainly depending on life-course factors. Whilst age 85 years is an upper limit to life expectancy at the population level, ca. 40% of the original birth cohort nevertheless can reach 90 years, 5-6% 100 years, few 100-115 years, and only a handful of individuals over that.

The most common non-communicable diseases are cardiovascular diseases, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, cancer, and degenerative diseases. Many risk factors for them have been identified. Overall, it seems feasible that health span - healthy years of life - extension and successful ageing can be promoted with better and long-term cardiovascular risk factor control. However, for reaching 100 years and over the role of genetic factors affecting longevity strengthens. For most of the population, extending life span and especially health span over 90 years requires new methods to control the biological ageing processes, currently investigated in the realms of Geroscience, the Longevity Dividend, and the Global Roadmap for Healthy Longevity.



We don't need money for the understanding of the mechanisms of aging, but for translating SENS into actual clinical therapies. Stoping aging without clearing the damage won't rejuvenate people. Rejuvenating people every 5 years without stoping aging isn't a problem at all. We won't stop aging before 2100, it's too complicated. Removing damage is a much easier and faster goal.

Posted by: Jonathan Weaver at January 12th, 2021 6:14 AM

Often when Ive asked ppl to donate to SRF they answer why aren't you donating to Unicef instead? I think we will never get beyond this question before the "child-problem" are solved. I read at Male Contraceptive Institute that are developing a male p-pill that there are 120M pregnancies annually and 80M are unintended.

Posted by: Gekki at January 12th, 2021 8:34 AM

@Gekki: The "child-problem" is only an excuse. Child mortality is very low, even in Africa. OTOH, more than 75% of people in the world die from aging. There is no country in the world whose life expectancy is less than 55 years.

Posted by: Antonio at January 12th, 2021 9:22 AM

@Antonio: I don't understand what you writing. A. That Unicef and supporters are using it as an excuse or B. Those that said why not Unicef? But I think if we could tilt the child/adult ratio more in favour of adults, we would not hear all those arguments. Unintended pregnancies can still go down.

Posted by: Gekki at January 12th, 2021 10:01 AM

When I encounter the inequality concern I say that wealth is more than money if ppl become rich because they live long you say that they are richer than children. I say that children are wealthier because wealth is more than money. The world is a better place today than 50y.

Posted by: Norse at January 12th, 2021 10:22 AM

And much wealth are transferred from the older gen to the younger without the old dying. I read that much money are going to young prostitutes from older men and in 2060 US woman are expected to be more wealthy than men.

Posted by: Norse at January 12th, 2021 10:24 AM

@Gekki: The B.

"But I think if we could tilt the child/adult ratio more in favour of adults"

Huh? Even more? Number of children per woman in the world is 2.44 (well, actually the total fertility rate). From ~2.3, world population decreases.

Posted by: Antonio at January 12th, 2021 10:37 AM

Because UNICEF and other efforts to, say, cure children of malaria in Africa have immediate results and cost little money. There are plenty of studies on how donating X dollars a month prevents Y deaths in deprived populations.
On the other hand, donating to anti-aging research translates into adding a few drops in the ocean of research - mostly in mice, at best translational. And as always, only a minuscule portion of this research will bear fruit.
People want to make a visible impact and they want to do it now. They also want the glory, hence the success of programmes like Sponsor an African Child (the one where you get a smiling headshot of the grateful kid that gets your protein bars and mosquito nets) etc.
Such is the human brain.

Posted by: Barbara T. at January 12th, 2021 11:24 AM

@Barbara T: And ppl are living short lives so they want impact asap. Paradoxically.

Posted by: thomas.a at January 12th, 2021 11:39 AM

Howdy There! Just a 2 cents. Happy New Year btw... TL DR: 1 Billion, it's great...we need that...just in the right therapy/endeavor...not waisted on stuff that is dead end.
Aging and health, not same thing. Small incréments of antiaging are not helping beyong improving health.

''Nir Barzilai recently gave an online talk with the Foresight Institute. In the talk he mentioned that an unnamed wealthy individual was in the process of setting up a longevity foundation that would invest ******$1 billion***** into anti-aging research and companies per year. Barzilai said the foundation would be announced in January of this year. Who could be the mysterious donor? Nir Barzilai indicated it is the same mysterious person that is funding the TAME trial and is a well known tech billionaire. My guess: It's Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle. He has a net worth of *****$88 billion and is 76 years old*****. Ellison has also donated to longevity causes in the past through the Ellison Medical Foundation. My second guess is Sergey Brin of Google.''

1 Billion... 8oD (!woaah) ... 'On TAME' meformin .. :( (tears)

Billionaires have 100% clue about making money (because ultra-rich); less clue on where to put the money.

He should have given at least 5-10 Billion, he has 88Bs (!), not lacking (in any way shape or form), Can afford to' (to lose some).
Ok 5-10 billion is a lot out of 88B; but we talking Bs here, not Ms or thousands. Being safe and not gambling all your money on
an 'unsafe bet anti-aging therapy' is understandable. But 'when push comes to shove' = dying (if otherwise). Dying rich (70s/76).
For them it is better dying rich than living a bit poorer - but (still) living/alive. Goes to show = money > life.

Money is now worth more than your body/life. It is why Big Pharm wants (to still) make cash from your dying body, it's a business and businesses run on dough;
you/your life/body don't matter; money 'made off of it is what matters. That is the problem with capitalism, your life/soul becomes 'bought/moot'. They sold' their soul to the buck.
Will put a 'tax price' on your head. On the amount of O2breath you breathe, will tax your thoughts and tax the mls of pee in toilet each day.
Tax everything, put a price tag on you/your life. This resemble the ancient days of slavery, owning a human/a life, by paying for it.
If we can put a price on anything, then we can put a price on you. Even on life.

Death suddenly becomes stupendously expensive compared to living (because it never ends, you die, forever; it might not cost a penny for money has no value in the no-life end, but there is a cost - it's you/your life).
Can't put a price on a life. Immesurable, incommensurable. Humans wanted to put a price on a life, a human or a pet. Can't.

My dad now has stopped take metformin (TAME) recently for his T2D...he had enough, Metformin did not stop is aging in any shape or form (controlled fasting glucose but still rose), I know, I see him (lots more gray lots more aging). He is on a keto diet halki salad dressing vegertarian greek eurodiet to lose waist weight (got almost none) and gain health; metformin no more, he don't give a sh anymore at this age and knows migth die. He is turning 74 year, like that 76 year old, billionaire.

''The incremental, modest advances (such as yet another way to mimic calorie restriction, as if we need more of those) are not going to move the needle all that much on human life span. People will still be aging and dying in much the same way as their parents and grandparents did.''

100% agreeing. And why 100% imperativity of things and people to wake up from torpor/sleep; soon it will be Eternal torpor for them otherwise.

''Overall, it seems feasible that health span - healthy years of life - extension and successful ageing can be promoted with better and long-term cardiovascular risk factor control. However, for reaching 100 years and over the role of genetic factors affecting longevity strengthens. For most of the population, extending life span and especially health span over 90 years requires new methods to control the biological ageing processes''

This. a Million Times. People need to understand Calorie Restriction makes you live longer healthier yes because of health improvement/health preservation 'homeostasis'...being above health treshold dysfunction.
But, it does not make you live longer than maximum longevity there is to humans (122 years MLSP). Calorie Restriction staves off DNA damage, staves off senescence, and you see anyone or any mouse living 10-times their life after, thus, damage repair/damage reversal/senescence fixing/inflammation reduction...and such are Health Improvements (and sure CR may be weaker than therapies that repair damages - but CR is Full Proof on extending healthspan if Affect Tons of Things in the body), they will increase your Healthspan buy you will never live much beyond 120 years 'hard-coded'-'cell intrinsic aging epiprogram'.

Many of the hallmarks of aging - are not - 'of aging', they are simply of 'healthspan degenerescence' when cells decide they had enough and 'Stop responding in their program'; in other words are manifestation of not keeping your health in check - with time passing, 'exiting the Normal aging course'; that's different than 'keeping/tabulating times on a calendar epiclock', an intrinsic chronogical process (happening damages or not, Calorie Restriciotn or Not) that -drives the program and makes a 'Course'-'aging by time passing, irrespectively of how healthy or not you are'.

I have to repeeat that health and aging are 2 things (I am of this view now); not the same, they function independently yet relate dependently too (because if you are young and sick, you may die Very Young, because very sick; you are much younger biologically but you die early - you exited the course of aging, you did not live your Full Life possible as human specie, you Died Prematurely due to damages/inflammation and what not - Accelerated in your yougn age). 1 is before the other: aging (instrinsic) > health (extrinsic). And epigenetics are made of EEA (extrinsic epigenetic age/health continuum preservation) and IEA (intrinsic epigenetic age/'aging by time'/time calendar tabs that 'move the program/make it 'unfold and happen' as time progresses).

It's like reading a paper have not read the whole scroll still must scroll through it To Learn It...same thing with aging. The Program/ not been scrolled all through it yet...what happens if you stop reading 'mid-way' die because you stopped reading the scroll; the scroll keeps you going - as long as you keep scrolling/reading it...and One day this scroll/story ends, that'S the End of the Scroll/the bottom of it. Analogically like scrolling down an internet page - if you don'T scroll have not read the whole content. if you leave the page, you know 'half the story' did not scroll to bottom.

When you scroll to the bottom of your internet page - you 'lived the whole story' and then, the story ends/has an end (i.e. that page has ended (with 'the scrolling of it')...& so has life). If no more scroll(ing) - no more life. But you can die prematurely - if you ever stop the scroll Before its end. Now apply this analogy to aging ('program/scrolling program code') and health (the element that keeps you alive now but does not decide you can live 120, it only 'allows it' - if you are healthy, you Might live 120, or Not; thus health is Pre-Requisite to Attaining Extreme Longevity but not a decider, only an 'allower' and yes a requisite (by preserving you health (enough) to live - to Reach that Age). Nuances, it's what lacking in aging because aging is dubious and ambiguous; and death too.

Just a 2 cents.

Posted by: CANanonymity at January 12th, 2021 3:32 PM

DNA damages = Uncoupled from Aging/Longevity specie span (max). Epiclock 'follows through' with or without any damages; that is a sign that DNA damages are simply 'accelerators/promoters of exit of aging course', in other words, Premature health degradation -'premature health loss/dysfunction - Not Related to deeper 'intrinsic aging process') it causing 'life cutting/life to end 'mid-way 'impromptu' of it's Full Potential/Maximum' - You Could Live Much Longer -if had kept your health - you could live to 122 but you will not surpass that because intrinsic aging has the 'final say' on how long the max longevity of your life will last. Not DNA damages - DNA damages are 'layers of limitation that hhapen if you don't keep your health' - they simply limit 'your Health Span'; not your 'Longevity/Human Life Span'.

Health = Uncoupled from Aging/Longevity specie span (max).

DNA damages = Coupled to Health span (+ DNA damages = Premature Death (you might die at 50, 60..65, will not die at 120, won't reach it because premature end in mid-life)/Exit of the 'normal aging': process of 0 - 122 years). People need to understand that dying at 60 is not the same as dying at 120 (obviously..age difference...) I mean that a person dying at 60 is 'halved' of their Full Potential; while a person dying at 120 'Spent 100% of their Full Potential'...and thus 'reached the Longevity Limit Possible' for a human (epigenetically clock speaking).

As such, death at 60 is not same at death as 120...the former is Premature, the latter is the Totality Limit of Life's Longevity has been Reached.

Health = Coupled to Health span but (can be) Uncoupled from Max Longevity/intrinsic normal aging course.

Posted by: CANanonymity at January 12th, 2021 4:48 PM

@CANonymity: Biolife4D which prints hearts wrote in their mail that they will get significant investment. Maybe related?

Posted by: thomas.a at January 12th, 2021 5:48 PM

@CANonymity: My grandfather died 59yo after a chainsaw accident. He cut himself in the leg. Days later he got a cloth in heart.

Posted by: thomas.a at January 12th, 2021 5:50 PM

Hi Thomas, Thank you for that, and sharing that. Just a 2 cents. Bioprinting/organ replacement with new ones is definitely an avenue to watch/possible...the only ick is the brain, I don't know how we will overcome the whole 'you have a brain/identity/soul in these neurons' to Transfer to a new bioprinted brain; it would mean we would have to 'form the same neurons' in that new brain; so that is 'transfer of brain identity' to a new's still in the sci-fi domain.Bioprinting heart will save lots of lives as you will get a new heart (so long as this bioprintnig process makes organs have age 0 or near 0/very Young..they should be 'clean slates in age'; bioprinting should be about creating 'Young organs' (obviously...not old ones), I mean we could transplant old organs long as we never 'run out of organs to replace with'...but making/bioprinting Old organs is self-defeating, they must be 'anew/Young like/back to 0 age', basically as if 'printing childrens (in age) organs'. We are trying to reemulate the body of children - to adults; obviously the point is not making us 'be children'...but rather to have the 'youth/eternal youth' that children have - To Adults.

So basically going back to your 20 years old...that means the bioprinting organs Must be Very Young in their clock/age. I am assuming that most likely all bioprinting organs are near 0 age/started anew in their respective age. As said it is selfdefeating to make old organs, better to make Young organs that 'age reset to 0'...still, obtaining an old replacement organ - is better than none whatsover; because you will die if you never get a heart transplant in time; so an Old one will do; but for 'rejuvenation' purposes.. the organs must be youngest/youth 0 age; you ever put 'used parts'/'old parts' in a old can but you try to put 'new parts' in an old that it lasts longer...putting old parts in it...just means you slightly delayed things to crumble later (yet again). It will not delay things as if putting 'fresh new parts in it that were never used/had no lifetime' usage'. Possibly they may do 'refactoring' (like items on eBay 'refactored'...they were used at some point...but manufacture refactored to 'adequate use' and then resold....but organs is bit iffyy...better not, refactorting would need Reversing of aging clock of it; otherwise, it is an old organ with 'partial refactoring' to's now 'in service/in function' again but...still old and as such will falter/fail down the line (much quicker than an Entire new piece/organ that was never refactored). Reprogramming is better than refactoring, reprogramming is erasure of signature (age clock), while refactoring could simply mean..this heart was nearly done...but we made it so it can function a little more/it beats..still (its age is still old...but it functions again with refactoring).

Just 2 cents.

PS: I truly apologize for your loss, this is the kind of thing that happens that just take us by surprise...we are left amputated (because that it was nearly happened to your grand-father; almost losing his leg by accidental cutting of it), but then...we lose a family member we love...that is figurative amputation, just like amputation by chainsaw accident. The complications from the cutting is truly saddening, it is why I am so adamant about checking your cholesterol levels (because I had a giant blood clot your grandfather..only I was much yougner than him/half age), I mean in my unluck..I 'sort of' had some lucj (I am still alive and thus extrmeely Lucky/grateful..) but your grand father is gone, from same thing as me (Atherosclerosis causes blood clots when plaques from

LDL excess depot in atherome lesion 'rupture' and then the clot travels/jams in the artery, I had pulmonary embolism by blockinh respiratory major artery/pulmonary artery), thus I experienced whar your grand father experience In a sense, differently, buy same outcome...get a blood clot. I may be Lucky just becaseu I am yougn..and in my unluck...the fact of it happening yougn (will shorten my life..due to this event) but will have at least stop me from dying from a clot in my 50s and Dying from it...not Surviving it...I survived it, but I suspect that older people is too Advanced and too hard on the body/too late and too diffiticult 'to survive it'..and as such you can die of it in old age.

But in your age, it's 2 things...either you immediately succomb it to it (because never faced such an ordeal...hard disease like that...and you are younh/yes with energy life..but yougn and not adapted to such 'hard disseases...' like old people are); Or, you can Survive it..because you overcame it by the fact of 'being young' enough to not damage you to death. Ithink that the complications were stronger and harder to overcome with age, and it's why you may die precipitously older; yet Younger you may survive (because still yougn..but can you Also die ssuddenyl..because as said...not used to such hard disease...SO Young, these are suppose to be diseases 'of old age/old people'...not Young adults)... but they do still happen even so (am proof of it).

There was study that had shown...people in their 30s...especially 40s-50s early/mid-life...have Way More...way way way more cholesterol/plaque formation than thought...even people who say 'cholestertol perfect''s accumulate microplaques/plaques deposition daily...thus, you arteries may not tell the whole picture and inspection may not reveal all about your vasculature, it's pernicious and 'silently' these plaques accumulate in your arteries...and one day, you may have infarct/clot/embolism of it it happened to me. You Dont' Want It to Happn at 70 years old..the survival chances of it ar very small at That Late Age.
I apologize deeply again for your loss.

Wish you Long Life/to reach the age of your grand-father, at very least, and go way way way over. Chainsaws are tools that need extreme care and a freak accident can happen...this is nearlty like that (but from complications of the cutting), chainsaws can 'bounce back' in your hands...and litterally' slice' your body...this happend a wood cutter went up a huge tree...he was Young, his job was cutting trees (émondeur/tree cutter), he would huge trunks trees..with his chainsaw as his job...well ,one day high above on that tree to cut the branch/trunk...the chainsaw bounced in a weird freak acciddent from his hands while holding it steady...the chainswa blade 'jammed/and vibrated/the metal bent...and bounced' so the spinning chain went to his torso and cuase Heavy cutting/injury trauma...he died while hanging on the tree. In my point of view, that is immense danger/risk/odds (ok like has risks..but), like they need some vest armor or Something doing this or stick to old 'long saws by hand'...manual labor, rarely anyone died of long manual saws....but buzzsaws/chainsaws and such are infinitely more Dangerous/need caution and protection of your torso/limbs like some armor or Something while doing this job otherwise 'taking your chances' holding the risky tools/gear. I think that is what we need to overcome - extrinsinc death/extrinsic problemscauses of death; which are accident, homicide and suicides...if we can overcome these, our chances of dying of extrinsic faftors drastically reduce; ok we may die of car accident, lightining strike, drown...butif we remain more 'closed-in' like hermits (which sound not very enticing 'fun life'') we reduce these risks..because we don't take these risks. I know some may : ''don't fear living...fear not living and 'being scared' (of living)...of risks/ your life''. Me, I changed on that view, I am scare of dying because as nearly reached it; my mother died of cancer, and she told me: ''
I am scared of dying''. I was so scared for her and completely disarmed and sad/losing your mother to a disease like that....I was vulnerable, like I could not help her...I told : ''don't worry...I love you''..becuause that is all I could say...I was so sad, terrified and praying Inside..that the cancer would not take her. I feared death 100% then, and still do now.

Posted by: CANanonymity at January 12th, 2021 6:45 PM

It is indeed the only organ there's no confidence we will be ever able to print. However, in the worst case scenario we will be having people with the bodies of 29-30 y.o. and and dementia. Better cardiovascular and immune systems would be postponing a lot of the brain deterioration, though.

And if open the box(cranium) the brain itself is not only neurons but astrocytes and other support tissues. Those could be potentially replaced.
A popular opinion is that the intelligence abd most of the self reside in the neocortex. So replacing some parts of the brain doesn't necessarily alter the person more than changing the mood . Of course, we are too far from that. Artificially printed organs have had vascularization problems for the last 25 years and so far no promising fixes are visible. We are talking about progress with tissues and simple organs and structures to be implanted .

And even with a complete organ it is hard to correctly implant it. Kidneys and the lever need to be attached to the blood vessels and byle/bladder. And that's it. But the moment there are nerves, muscles , tendons and such it becomes an extremely complicated operation.

I haven't heard of any printed nerves , we still cannot correctly reconnect severed spinal cord nor transplant an eye.

So I would start worrying about the brain the moment we have figured out the rest.

Posted by: Cuberat at January 12th, 2021 11:22 PM

@CANonymity: About manual saw. My opinion is if you only have a few trees to cut you should use manual saw. Even if it takes you days instead of hours.

Posted by: thomas.a at January 13th, 2021 6:08 AM

Hi Cuberat! Just a 2 cents.

Thank you for these precisions, I guess we must temper our hopes with bioprinting since it is still a field in becoming with the pitfalls you mentionned. Let's hope (even so) that we find a way to keep our memories to a new bioprinted brain. I think many (or like All) people would 100% refuse to have their brain changed if ever it means losing their self/identity. I mean that is a Death sentence - you lose your self/you/your identity...erased.

But as you mentioned, maybe parts of the brain replaced (rather than Total replacement) might do 'just enough' keep a rejuvenated brain. At least, nearly all the other organs will be replaced but as you said, there are still lots of complication to 'connect them' Inside/plant them with the extra stuff (nerves, tendons, cartilage...), it's not easy to (trans)plant and body to not reject this. I feear the immune system may Attack body/organ if transplant rejected by body. The whole bioprinting domain is not that new (with 25 years progress..) and yet still several challenges; at least we will have new organs, it's just the other problems (planting rejection, brain organ, severed spinal cord, eye transplant) not fixed yet...

@Thomas: Thank you for the reply, I am of the same opinion. People take lots of risks....I am even amazed that there are not More problems/stuff happening from taking these risks. It means a lot of people - are very lucky and that the odds are very low; but yes it does happen randomly to some people. I think that odds/risks may be low, but even so, in my view and like yous, they are not low enough; they should be to near or next-to-near 0; not even 1 out of 1 million. Which is nearly basically 0 odds. But lots of stuff that people do, are not 1 chance out of 1 million;;it's much much higher than that...some truly play the '1 chance out of 10' doing the stuff they do; they have 1 chance out of 10 that Something bad happens and may die of it. It is very close to the spin/play of russian roulette analogy (6 chambers barrel, 1 bullet in one of them, the 5 others empty) = 1 chance out of 6 that you may end up on that bullet-chamber out of the 6 when pressing trigger. If you keep pressing, one time yes you will fall on it; it could take you 300 tries (by immense luck) or it could take you 3 tries (by immense unluck but it's 1 out 6 so not much luck odds/ratio to begin with - I mean, it is Bad Luck...not good luck, because of the danger of it; 1 chance of 6 is High Luck/high odd...of death) and that'S it. As you, I believe that if we change certain things, like ways of doing, however small we reduce our total death odds by being more preventful/ apprehensive/safe/security....we can't live 100% 0 risks, 0 our life...there always some micro-risks to almost anything. But mitigating it by doing actions that make it close 100% no odds is doing what you can to not hasten your end (by an accident). Just by choosing a manual tool/saw instead of automatic one, you reduced drasticallly the problems/dangers....but people still continue to take risks (ex: drive drunk, use sharp tools, use sharp metal utensils for eating (freak kitchen accidents happen), cross the street on a red light/jaywalk in zigzag when cars all around, etc....obviously this may sound like hermit mind, but now I don't care anymore, hermit might be 'cloistered' in their thoughts and 'staying-in'..they are alive, that'S the difference. I'll take boredome/boring life, but alive, over a more 'intrepid/experienceful/living life Fast/dangerously' but dying young from taking so many risks daily. ''Live Fast Die Young'' not worth it anymore for me, dull as a hermit life sounds, to me, just the fact of living (and not caring it is dull) is what matters more; because I know lots of people would prefer being dead than living a boring
life/unrisky/closed-in 'scared of living/scared of taking risks' life. Taking risks means you are at odds with your life, and it may end prematurely/by accident due to said risks taking. As I repeat, the minute you leave your door, you play russian roulette with life risks exposure and someone literally 'can die at your doorstep' (meaning, you may leave your safe place, but once you leave, you are not safe anymore, your life is facing these odds/risks/dangers; However small they are.. even just going to your corner dépanneur drugstore).

Posted by: CANanonymity at January 13th, 2021 10:53 AM

@CANonymity: This is the best post I've read from you. Reflect my mindset much. I hope there could be more posts maybe not on this blog but a similar site about what ppl do to reduce risks.

You wrote: "obviously this may sound like hermit mind, but now I don't care anymore, hermit might be 'cloistered' in their thoughts and 'staying-in'..they are alive, that'S the difference. I'll take boredome/boring life, but alive, over a more 'intrepid/experienceful/living life Fast/dangerously' but dying young from taking so many risks daily. ''Live Fast Die Young'' not worth it anymore for me, dull as a hermit life sounds, to me, just the fact of living (and not caring it is dull) is what matters more; because I know lots of people would prefer being dead than living a boring
life/unrisky/closed-in 'scared of living/scared of taking risks' life."

I totally agree. Better to stay safe inside. COVID-19 learned us that. Much you can do home. Also living in sa safe neighbourhood and countryshould be a priority. I rarely travel out of the Nordic countries. I see Canada as safe.

Posted by: thomas.a at January 13th, 2021 11:43 AM

I would say human brain is hardwired to take extra risks and explore when young and only after our prime we become wiser and more cautious. When the life extension and rejuvenation treatments become available all the reckless and adrenaline junkies will eventually be selected out as they will have a couple of order higher mortality then everybody else. However, that is yet another bridge to cross when we come there...

Posted by: Cuberat at January 13th, 2021 7:38 PM

@Cuberat: Interesting. Ive never thought life extension will contribute to evolution and taking it to next level by selecting out those with most adrenaline, so one. Because ppl will start reproduce later. I recently read that psychopaths have 2 opioid receptors. Normal is 1. There are mostly psychopaths who dies in the opioid epidemic. Already before that psychopaths were overrepresented amongst drug abusers. Its clinical name is Anti Social Personality Disorder and it only becomes + Psycopathy when a person with ASPD have killed some one. Im sure that genetics will discover there are more ppl than the known 1% with ASPD+P. A male p-pill will also contribute to select out the worst ppl. I became interested in male p-pill because I grown up with a person who had a extremely self obsessive mother which had a father who were an alcoholic. Her son caused lots of problems to all around him. She met his father at city in 86 and went into one of them and went to bed. She abandoned his father and he and his brother became problem boys. I wish Ive never met him and if the male p-pill was invented that might have come true,

Posted by: thomas.a at January 13th, 2021 11:58 PM

Im sure when we look back from year 3000 we will see that drugs contributed positively to society by selecting out the worst. We should make it legal. Not only OTC but they who trade drugs in large quanta should not get penalty.

Posted by: thomas.a at January 14th, 2021 12:04 AM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.