Do people get humped by nature?

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Was talking about this earlier, and i said something along the lines of;

People get all sorts of problems and things get f*cked up in our body due to us not supposed to live much past 30.

Meaning that it's rather un-natural that we live somewhere into the 70-80 region and things break down.

Is it evolution that we live longer or is it a simple case of "fighting death with science/medicine/etc"?
 

Macey

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
83
Medicine.

If it wasn't for vaccines etc the rate of infant mortality would skyrocket again.

If it wasn't for advanced physio/surgery etc then people would be dropping down far earlier in later life when things which we now consider to be "minor injuries" would cause major problems. I know plenty of 30-40's with heart conditions, hell I even know some people in their 20's with heart conditions, all of which would be a hell of a lot worse off if it wasn't for medicine.

There must be some level of evolution that plays into it, but the mere fact that the "superbugs" are now causing all kinds of problems, mrsa etc, shows that it must be medicine which keeps us alive rather than evolution.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
I'm in the same camp with this, but got some people saying that people would live up to 50 naturally.

I find that figure a bit long, considering that a minor cut can get infected and kill you.

Though, also have to think about if modern medicine has lowered our immunity and if we would get a better immunity system if we didn't get all those shots as kids.

If we survived that is.
 

RandomBastard

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
1,318
Its not just medicine that has increased our life expectancy, change in life style has as well, no longer are people working in harsh conditions like a few hundred years ago (industrial revolution) and modern sanitation decreases the amount of disease we are exposed to. Which I suppose might lower our immune systems...

However Vaccines increase your immune system, always have, always will. (If you are not aware, most vaccines work by infecting you with said virus, often a deactivated or weaker strain, so you get the immune system boost without the unhelpful side effects).
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Its not just medicine that has increased our life expectancy, change in life style has as well, no longer are people working in harsh conditions like a few hundred years ago (industrial revolution) and modern sanitation decreases the amount of disease we are exposed to. Which I suppose might lower our immune systems...

However Vaccines increase your immune system, always have, always will. (If you are not aware, most vaccines work by infecting you with said virus, often a deactivated or weaker strain, so you get the immune system boost without the unhelpful side effects).

Good points actually, forgot how vaccines work stupid me :(

And yes, work conditions and such have improved. Would have to compare a workers life expectancy on the indy era and then on a miner these days(example).
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,439
Here's the problem with evolution.
It only works when the organism is in reproducing ages with a huge tilt towards the ages the organism reproduces.
That means anything > 40 doesn't really change much.

We're not meant to live over 30 is a crock of shit, or did god tell you that?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,185
Evolution is largely oblivious to our survival past breeding age. It doesn't necessarily require us to die but it doesn't care that much if we do (we provide a little benefit looking after grandkids but that will only have a small effect.)

Hence we get cancer. Natural selection doesn't care that much about cancer as the majority of sufferers are over 40.

The nasty part about all our (fantastic all the same) modern medicine is that a lot of people with genes for early cancer or early heart disease are now managing to contribute to the gene-pool and pass these on. Wouldn't change it for the world but it's happening and until we get gene therapy or somesuch to remove it it will get worse.
 

Macey

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
83
Its not just medicine that has increased our life expectancy, change in life style has as well, no longer are people working in harsh conditions like a few hundred years ago (industrial revolution) and modern sanitation decreases the amount of disease we are exposed to. Which I suppose might lower our immune systems...

Surely though a major factor behind the change in lifestyle is down to scientific developments. Heating, water supply, transport etc means that our home lives are far less stressful energy consuming and clean. The work environment again has largely improved due to scientific advances meaning that a lot of the more dangerous industrial jobs are either done by machines or with very advanced safety equipment in place to prevent injury etc.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
So if we accept that modern science and such contribute to our longer life cycle(as i think we all can), should we let it?

Let's take a "big" doomsday scenario;

Solar flare occurs that blasts our electronics to kingdom come.

We need to go more "nature", heating done via old school ways and such.

Would we be able to? Would ti simply be a case of adaptation? Would we struggle to survive as a species?

As such, should we tone down the immunitation of our species, or keep going as long as things are good?
 

russell

FH is my second home
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
1,898
Its a double edged sword.
We are science/ vaccination crazy- but that keeps us 'healthier'. (I cant believe there is talk of putting chicken pox in the MMR vaccination- which is already loaded for a 2 yr old imo).
Society wont go back to ye olde nature ways, unless something forces that. But like Old T says, we will struggle- but adapt longterm as human beings always have, historically.
Its a question of balance, as always. As we progress, progress, progress there are consequences (nucleur stuff, genetic stuff, super bugs, cancer etc) But then our view of the more natural way of stuffs is likely to be tinged with nostalgia.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
People get all sorts of problems and things get f*cked up in our body due to us not supposed to live much past 30.

Is it evolution that we live longer or is it a simple case of "fighting death with science/medicine/etc"?

We're designed to live way past 30. It's just in the past the way we live meant that we'd get killed off earlier.

If you broke your femur in the past that'd make you lame and unable to hunt or gather. May not have been a death sentence if the people with you helped, but it'd be more than the inconvenience it is today.

I'd have popped it ages ago having broken more things than just my silly legs tho :)

Viral and bacterial infections are also much less likely to kill you now - that's medical science for ya.

If you could stay break and illness free though Humans have been able to live this long for ages. Lets face it - the heart conditions and cancer rates of today's Western societies are down mainly to lack of exercise and poor diets.

So if we accept that modern science and such contribute to our longer life cycle(as i think we all can), should we let it?

Yes. We'd be retards not to.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,979
I cant believe there is talk of putting chicken pox in the MMR vaccination- which is already loaded for a 2 yr old imo

Not trying to be funny Russ. But do your medical qualifications give you reason for your concern about the MMR being too "loaded" for a 2 year old? ;)
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
We're designed to live way past 30. It's just in the past the way we live meant that we'd get killed off earlier.

Any idea when that cut-off would be?

If i remember correctly, no human has died of "old age"(funny though), so the question is, how long DO we live?

Have to admit i based my 30 on past life expectancy and that isn't a valid point.

Yes. We'd be retards not to.

In this day and age, granted. But if you were to know, or humanity would know, that in a 100 years or so some "magical" occurance happened that would mean we'd have to revert to the woods(or some such), would we have to cut ack to bring our species into a better position to adapt to it?
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
44,616
Yes we would, though it would happen through natural selection. Dummies who can't look after themselves without a gadget would die off first leaving people with common sense left. The world can't support this many people without technology. Bring it on.

People use to many anti bacterials and other such junk, they wonder why their kids are sickly weaklings. A child needs to play in the mud, it needs to catch all the illnesses. When I was a kid if one child got chicken pox or something the rest of the mums would bring their kids round so that they could get it too, get it out the way. Nowadays they worry about all sorts of modern day shit that some how didn't bother us 20-30 years ago.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Yes we would, though it would happen through natural selection. Dummies who can't look after themselves without a gadget would die off first leaving people with common sense left. The world can't support this many people without technology. Bring it on.

People use to many anti bacterials and other such junk, they wonder why their kids are sickly weaklings. A child needs to play in the mud, it needs to catch all the illnesses. When I was a kid if one child got chicken pox or something the rest of the mums would bring their kids round so that they could get it too, get it out the way. Nowadays they worry about all sorts of modern day shit that some how didn't bother us 20-30 years ago.

Hear hear.

Met a girl at a bar and before entering my apartment she asked if i use some form of scented soap or other such things in my apartment 'cause she couldn't handle ANY non-anti-bacterial stuff.

Kind of gave a big ? on my head, as i was grown in the mud with dogs licking face and eating nuts like there's no tomorrow too :D

Disclaimer: Yes i had sex with her and no, my attempt at condom allergy claims didn't work :(
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
You've got to be careful with the stats here; in the past the average lifespan figure was brought down by the huge infant mortality rates dragging down the average. Pre-industrial revolution, if you got past the age of five you had a fair chance of surviving until the age of 50 or beyond (the main drag on women being childbirth and men warfare). Its only since WWII (in the developed world) that we've really cracked the infant and mother mortality issues and of course we've not had any demographic-changing wars, so the gradually increasing lifespan curve in the first half of the century skyrocketed in the second half.

The thing is, with current medical techniques we're reaching the end of the "natural" phase of lifespan extension; the next phase(s), genetic, nano maybe cybernetic, could be really dramatic (if you can afford it). The trick is to live long enough for them to become viable...
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Aye, the estimate of 30 is a bit harsh, while it may have been a "fact" back in the day, or in the pre-stages of human life cycle.

I do agree that the only way forward is some extreme leaps in medical/scientific advancement.

Or, hell, major disaster that would unite nations. Seems that humans only take huge leaps forwards when push comes to shove.

Though nations should put more effort in combining the two, which i think they've been pushing for in the past years.

Would be a b*tch to die one day before immortality is developed ;)
 

mycenae

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
877
Toht, people die of old age all the time. All the body organs just stop working and shut down cos they have worked too hard for too long....it might be a heart attack or infarct that kills them, but for many people they have no prior history of heart problems and the one attack they get is just too massive to save them from.
People tend to think of heart attacks as violent things.....because the word attack is used. Generally it doesn't stem from exertion or stress or anything like that, the heart just decided one day that enough is enough and stops working. If you're lucky enough to get symptoms, the docs can usually stop it happening, but in the old folks, its more likely to happen in their sleep....in which case thats it. Best way to go if you ask me.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Toht, people die of old age all the time. All the body organs just stop working and shut down cos they have worked too hard for too long....it might be a heart attack or infarct that kills them, but for many people they have no prior history of heart problems and the one attack they get is just too massive to save them from.
People tend to think of heart attacks as violent things.....because the word attack is used. Generally it doesn't stem from exertion or stress or anything like that, the heart just decided one day that enough is enough and stops working. If you're lucky enough to get symptoms, the docs can usually stop it happening, but in the old folks, its more likely to happen in their sleep....in which case thats it. Best way to go if you ask me.

Well i don't know how trusted livescience.com is but;

"It is true that living cells have a finite life span, but that doesn't mean that the organism simply dies because the cells are old. Instead, genetic mutations, diseases, and damaging effects of the environment can foster a specific disorder or disease. As people get older, their cells simply don't work as well, and can't stave off disease as easily or heal as well as they once could. As a result, older people may die from injuries or diseases that a younger person would easily survive. But nothing dies from simply being old."


And that's about how i've understood it always; something usually breaks before age can kill people.

Which kinda goes to show more that my 30 year estimate isn't accurate as there is none :eek7:
 

Krazeh

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
950
And that's about how i've understood it always; something usually breaks before age can kill people.

It's old age that causes things to break. While the specific cause of death might be a disease or an organ shutting down the person has essentially died of old age.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
It's old age that causes things to break. While the specific cause of death might be a disease or an organ shutting down the person has essentially died of old age.

Well, i guess it's an issue that could be talked to high heavens and all comes down to technicalities and how one percieves things.

I find that people die of disease, organ failure, and such, not old age, so i guess we have to agree to disagree on that.

I know it's dividing even some of the greatest minds on the planet so, who are we to argue it :D
 

Zenith.UK

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,913
Don't think I'm being religious, but the Bible is often quoted as saying that a man's years are three score and ten (3*20 + 10 = 70).
If that was the case 2000-3500 years ago, mankind hasn't evolved much. Medicine makes a difference to quality of life, but we're all still pretty much wearing out by 70.
 

Krazeh

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
950
I find that people die of disease, organ failure, and such, not old age, so i guess we have to agree to disagree on that.

As I said eariler things like disease, organ failure etc are what technically kills old people but this is only due to the age of the patient, i.e. old age either supresses the immune system to a level where it can't fight off infection or causes organs to fail. However professionals can't very well write "Old age" as cause of death when filling in coroner reports and the like.

I know it's dividing even some of the greatest minds on the planet so, who are we to argue it :D

Which great minds would these be?
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
The thing is, anything that kills an old person can killa young person and anything that kills a young person doesn't necessarily kill an old person.

So the causes of death are not always age related.

That's why i think there's a distinction to be made.

The great minds mean, scintific, medical circles in general. It's not like it's a new topic.

Great minds on their field compared to us ;)
 

Krazeh

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
950
The thing is, anything that kills an old person can killa young person and anything that kills a young person doesn't necessarily kill an old person.

So the causes of death are not always age related.

That's why i think there's a distinction to be made.

Of course causes of death are not always age related but that doesn't mean that there aren't causes of death that are age related. The simple fact is that people do die of old age due to their bodies shutting down leading to organ failure or inability to fight off simple infections.

But as I agreed earlier the specific causes of death are things like organ failure or infection etc. which is why it is these that are recorded rather than "old age".

The great minds mean, scintific, medical circles in general. It's not like it's a new topic.

Great minds on their field compared to us ;)

Like?? All i'm asking for is a few names of the great minds who are apparently debating whether or not old age causes people to die.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Of course causes of death are not always age related but that doesn't mean that there aren't causes of death that are age related. The simple fact is that people do die of old age due to their bodies shutting down leading to organ failure or inability to fight off simple infections.

But as I agreed earlier the specific causes of death are things like organ failure or infection etc. which is why it is these that are recorded rather than "old age".

Aye, the reason is most likely organ failure, disease or infection or some such and the reason, to my opinion note, is that it's just "due time".

They've fought 'em of their whole lives and at some point, that 0.1% of having a heart-attack WILL catch up.

But that's more technical and opinion related.

Like?? All i'm asking for is a few names of the great minds who are apparently debating whether or not old age causes people to die.

I dunno! Some doctors and such. It wasn't meant as a literal "stephen hawking had this to say", just that the issue has been on the table for quite some time.

Unless ofcourse you know something i don't about a census on the matter, in which case i'll be more then willing to listen.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Evolution enabled us to live long enough to breed - the big mystery is why post-menopausal women survive so long since unlike males they serve no further purpose - I would guess its just an un-looked for side affect of evolution - it certainly wouldnt be one of its aims.

I would argue there are hardwired expiry dates on humans - the reason we have them is that they probably benefit us for the first 30odd years and beyond that evolution doesnt care so it had no reason to fix them.

The two main candidates are copying errors and shortening telomeres.

The copying theory means basically the longer you live the more your cells have to be replaced and UV, radiation, certain chemicals and general crap from previous cells gradually causes more and more errors - all your organs would gradually be impaired in what we call 'aging'.

The Telomere theory - Telomeres are like little tails on chromosones - its argued that they help ensure chromosones match up during new cell creation - however every time its copied the telomere tail gets shorter eventually leading to mis-matches that again create bad cells that impair us by 'aging'.

This theory also explains why clones taken from adult cells die quickly - their cells start with the short telomeres of an adult even when physically newborn so they age very rapidly.

Thats why dolly the sheep lasted about half as long as would be expected.
 

Krazeh

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
950
Aye, the reason is most likely organ failure, disease or infection or some such and the reason, to my opinion note, is that it's just "due time".

They've fought 'em of their whole lives and at some point, that 0.1% of having a heart-attack WILL catch up.

So old age then?

I dunno! Some doctors and such. It wasn't meant as a literal "stephen hawking had this to say", just that the issue has been on the table for quite some time.

Unless ofcourse you know something i don't about a census on the matter, in which case i'll be more then willing to listen.

From that should I read there are in fact no great minds debating whether or not old age kills people and it was just a comment you made with nothing at all to back it up?
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
So old age then?

Like i said earlier, let's just agree to disagree. It comes down to technicalities.

From that should I read there are in fact no great minds debating whether or not old age kills people and it was just a comment you made with nothing at all to back it up?

Well i'm certain that greater minds then us two right here, right now, have talked about it.

It's ofcourse a "guess" that people have, but i'm betting neither of us came up with the theory.

Give me a couple of weeks while i trot through the vast internets and find an answer if any great minds you know have posted or written anything about it, but for now, let's just roll with it ok? It's not like i made the comment to prove something.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom