• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

The Price WE PAY for SEX is . . . Death?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#1 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 08 April 2008 - 10:55 PM


I read in either The Merchants of Immortality by Stephen Hall or The Quest for Immortality by Oshansky and Carnes; okay, maybe I read in Merchants of Immortality (i remember it was a big fat red book), a neat little quote: "The price we pay for sex is death." I think Hall spent a whole chapter explaining the relationship btw sex and death and I skimmed through the chapter or totally skipped it (How COULD I have skipped a whole chapter on sex, among my favorite topics besides immortality? but I apparently did)

So uh.. The Price WE PAY for SEX is . . . Death? Anyone care to explain for me please? Because I only borrowed the book and I can't find the link btw sex and death anymore.

I think it has something to do with how humans sexually reproduce and all we care is to get old enough to raise children and the genes don't give a hoot about our precious bodies anymore and we die. But then again, asexual organisms die too.


ON A PERSONAL SIDE NOTE: Masturbation is a form of sex i think. Is Masturbation Bad? I'm a normal 21-year-old college guy and I have sexual urges, but what with the VD/STD/STIs out there and my other things, I get horny sometimes and want to release. I masturbated really often like everyday between 14-17 and masturbate up to a few times a week or a month even now. I estimate that I ejaculated anywhere from 1500-2100 times. I like science and would hope to believe masturbation is not all that bad and even have a bit of beneficial effects, but I want to hear the Immortalist view. Thinking about all the semen and sperm I wasted, I just feel bad.

Will masturbation affect one's life expectancy? Should I stop masturbating?


Thank you.

Edited by HYP86, 08 April 2008 - 11:01 PM.


#2 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 08 April 2008 - 11:44 PM

I think that sex and masturbation won't make you live less... the damage is already made. If we weren't born to reproduce through sex then yes we would probably live longer. A lot of the energy the body has is put in sex and being fit to make sex. That's why those who are under calorie restriction lose some of their sex urge; their body, instead of using a lot of energy to make them fit to make sex as much as possible, it uses more energy to get into "maintenance mode", it makes the body's cells have a better regeneration capacity.



What matters is not how much sex you make, but if your body is programmed to make this much sex. You can partly "reprogram" your body (to focus, instead of sex, in its maintenance) by doing calorie restriction or some other things.

#3 Heliotrope

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 April 2008 - 12:02 AM

I think that sex and masturbation won't make you live less... the damage is already made. If we weren't born to reproduce through sex then yes we would probably live longer. A lot of the energy the body has is put in sex and being fit to make sex. That's why those who are under calorie restriction lose some of their sex urge; their body, instead of using a lot of energy to make them fit to make sex as much as possible, it uses more energy to get into "maintenance mode", it makes the body's cells have a better regeneration capacity.



What matters is not how much sex you make, but if your body is programmed to make this much sex. You can partly "reprogram" your body (to focus, instead of sex, in its maintenance) by doing calorie restriction or some other things.



Oh okay , that makes sense. So the number of times I ejaculate does not matter even if I masturbated thousands of times? I feel bad after each ejaculation. I think I may still want to cut back down a little on sex, because it does waste energy and "vital life force." I read that castrated men a(eunuchs) live longer, and this seems to fit the theory, because then they don't have these sexual urges anymore, not virile men anymore. Then maybe their bodies are just expecting to have sex and make babies, but can't do it and the genes want them to live longer to wait for the never-coming "opportunity."

I think it may explain why after puberty is finished, it's all down-hill and aging, because then the body would have experienced a long and intense period (up to yrs) of sex and programmed to think: "Ok this dude is actively reproducing. That's good. Now let him live long enough to raise children and maybe see grandchildren. Then we're done with him. Muahaahhaaahaaahaaha.. (evil laugh)." Then the genes abandon "ship" and we're left dead, with the offspring continuing on sailing.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 vyntager

  • Guest
  • 120 posts
  • 2

Posted 09 April 2008 - 12:28 AM

In addition to what sam said, it's noteworthy to know that what is usually meant by "sex equates the beginning of death" really is an old meme stemming from a simplification.

That simplification is : asexual organisms (especially unicellular ones) can go on dividing forever without ever "dying", sexual organisms are born, mature, may or may not reproduce, and regardless of that, eventually die. So as soon as sex appears, so does death.

As you said, even asexual organisms die. Even monocellular ones, such as bacterias, age. On the other hand, some multicellular ones appear to be non senescent, some trees for instance, have been going on for millenia.

At any rate, you could as well say that what kills us and any complex organism is just that, our complexity. It just can't be maintained as easily as a tree, a fungus, let alone a bacteria.

That being said, there's indeed a slight tradeoff between reproduction and repair mechanisms. I've often wondered about it, though, and it isn't clear where you should draw the line as to whether or not you have been "reproducing" and therefore are more expendable, as viewed through an evolutionary lense.

In other words, when does your body "knows" that it has been reproducing ? Is it when your testes start maturing, producing certain hormones such as testosterone ? Is it when you perform a sexual act ? If so, must you be with someone else, or alone ? Must it be repeated many times, or is once, or a few times enough to clue your body ? Is it when you are in the continuous, or temporary presence of a potential, or declared sexual partner ? Maybe is it when you are in the continual, or even temporary presence of children ? And must they then be your own to have an effect on your rate of aging ?

In every one of these cases, how do your body "tells" the difference ? The difference between lone sexual activity, or with a partner ? The difference between being part of a group with members of the other sex, and being part of a couple with one ? The difference between being part of a group containing children, and having a family ?

It is evolutionarily relevant for the body to know how to make such a difference in each case, if there's a tradeoff between sexuality and longevity.

But not all of them may be amenable to providing the necessary clues for you body, for instance, it may be difficult to tell the difference between your own offspring and those of others in the old times (a touchy topic, and for which we have been fine tuned to make sure they are; besides inclusive fitness has it that in small groups of extended family, your uncle's children are a bit like your children, so to speak, from the gene's point of view).

And yet also, not all of these clues may refer to situations that have been remaining the same, for instance, it may be that we masturbate more nowadays than in the past (not terribly sure about that one though), and if it is the case, it would mean that a signal that was a stable measure of the probability of having children (performing sexual acts, the body wouldn't care to pay attention, if that was even possible, as to whether or not it was with someone else, since reliably almost always was), is not efficient anymore.

Regardless, sexuality, bonds, coupling, parenting, all initiate noticeable psychological and physiological changes, so it is almost certain that the body has certain ways of assessing whether or not it has been reproducing, or at least, if there's a good chance it has.

Any particular phase of your life require different strategies in order to keep your reproductive fitness high, as for instance, growing into an adult first, then switching modes and starting to invest energy into searching a mate and seducing it, then switching once again once you beget children, to care for them and make sure they survive until at least they are fit and grown enough to care for themselves. At which point you might still be good to go and make some more children, but it is (you are) not necessary anymore, as your genes have been passed over on to the next generation.

Edited by vyntager, 09 April 2008 - 01:20 AM.


#5 Mixter

  • Guest
  • 788 posts
  • 98
  • Location:Europe

Posted 09 April 2008 - 01:32 PM

What the previous post said.

Also, try to find some supercentenarians who had happy
long-term sexual relationships (i.e. marriage) in their past.
And then try to find supercentenarians who didn't. Hard, eh? :p

In or out of a relationship, never having sex increases a man's
risk for prostate cancer. From the hormonal point of view, the
idea of sex leading to death is simply invalid.

#6 Heliotrope

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 April 2008 - 12:24 AM

What the previous post said.

Also, try to find some supercentenarians who had happy
long-term sexual relationships (i.e. marriage) in their past.
And then try to find supercentenarians who didn't. Hard, eh? :p

In or out of a relationship, never having sex increases a man's
risk for prostate cancer. From the hormonal point of view, the
idea of sex leading to death is simply invalid.



Yeah I know sex does not lead to death simply because of human physiology. Sex leading to death must be due to the evolutionary causes. Death makes room for the future generations and so the ancestors wouldn't compete for resources. That makes me feel better about continuing to masturbate lol.

If Immortality escapes me, then having a few children and ensure my genetic survival would be the next-best-thing.


I don't know what course you take, but Give me Immortality or give me Death!

#7 jackinbox

  • Guest
  • 452 posts
  • 4

Posted 10 April 2008 - 01:43 AM

Sex is one of the thing life worth living. It's a good exercise too and reduce stress. I see only good in having sex, alone or with a partner, as long as you protect yourself.

#8 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 April 2008 - 02:23 AM

What the previous post said.

Also, try to find some supercentenarians who had happy
long-term sexual relationships (i.e. marriage) in their past.
And then try to find supercentenarians who didn't. Hard, eh? :p

In or out of a relationship, never having sex increases a man's
risk for prostate cancer. From the hormonal point of view, the
idea of sex leading to death is simply invalid.


I have been thinking about this issue a lot, but not from that angle. I think the problem really is that marriage can be limiting and often takes away from ambition. The problem is that time is finite. It can be put into work, education, spouse, but not all at the same time. For example, if you are serious and your education demands most of your time, then a relationship becomes harder. This is not a rule and there are good exceptions, it's just that they are hard to find. Many dumb guys buy fancy cars which they cannot afford to attract hot women. This is an example of resources wasted on sex. There are others.

I work with a girl whose husband is working on his Ph. D. He just got his degree, but for the past 2+ years, they have been living on opposite ends of the country. Up until now, they have seen each other rarely. It's very hard today to find a woman who would accept that.

Edited by Ghostrider, 10 April 2008 - 02:26 AM.


#9 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 10 April 2008 - 03:04 AM

Oh okay , that makes sense. So the number of times I ejaculate does not matter even if I masturbated thousands of times? I feel bad after each ejaculation. I think I may still want to cut back down a little on sex, because it does waste energy and "vital life force." I read that castrated men a(eunuchs) live longer, and this seems to fit the theory, because then they don't have these sexual urges anymore, not virile men anymore. Then maybe their bodies are just expecting to have sex and make babies, but can't do it and the genes want them to live longer to wait for the never-coming "opportunity."

If you ejaculate thousands of times in one day, you would have a problem. Other than that, stop feeling bad! The point of masturbating is to feel good, so enjoy it. Knock off the sugar and high-glycemic foods, wear your sunscreen, and wank to your heart's content. It's not shortening your life, unless you worry about it.

#10 lunarsolarpower

  • Guest
  • 1,323 posts
  • 53
  • Location:BC, Canada

Posted 10 April 2008 - 04:17 AM

A couple links for you.

#11 Heliotrope

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 10 April 2008 - 04:37 AM

cool, so ejaculation reduces risk of prostate cancer.

still, I think there's a bit of truth in "The price we pay for sex is death."

Death is the ultimate price that one pays for many things. i fear it may be something we cannot avoid, even if we dodge it and extend the deadline indefinitely. Accidents happen, and accidents will catch up with us sooner or later even if we're physically immortal. I can't think of a single sure-fire way to guarantee 100% eternal existence. Therefore, i want to live life to its fullest, enjoying all the things including stress free sexual pleasure, b/c i'm afraid one day i will indeed die. I've come to terms with myself mostly. Let's all work together to live as long as possible. In the end, who knows, we may live for a million years and finally be content. In my SHORT life of 21 years, I've searched long and deep and know I want to live forever, but i don't know if it is meant to be in the very end. If we become immortal, more power to us. If not, I really don't know.

Edited by HYP86, 10 April 2008 - 04:54 AM.


#12 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 10 April 2008 - 07:05 PM

There was this recent article i read on scientific american mind that talked about the brain during orgasm... let me quote it:

"During ejaculation, neural activity declines in the amygdala, the brain's seat of vigilance-an apparent sign that men are momentarily throwing caution to the wind. In females, various regions in the brain, including the amygdala virtually shut down at orgasm... Some of the most muted neurons [in females] sat in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex, which may govern self-control over basic desires such as sex. Decreased activity there, the researchers suggest, might correspond to a release of tension and inhibition. The scientists also saw a dip in excitation in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which has an apparent role in moral reasoning and social judgment- a change that may be tied to a suspension of judgment and reflection." (Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008; pg 70)

One could interpret a shutting off of various brain regions in various ways, which i'm sure somehow would correspond with some type of biological processes within the body. Any thoughts on this?

Personally i look at this whole immortality desire in one specific formula: (quality of life) * (life span) = life. I don't see the point in subjugating anyone to a decreased enjoyment of life in order to increase a numerical value that is not always related to enjoyment levels. So perhaps the best idea is to live modestly but do live...

Edited by mysticpsi, 10 April 2008 - 07:07 PM.


#13 s123

  • Director
  • 1,347 posts
  • 1,053
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 10 April 2008 - 10:05 PM

There was this recent article i read on scientific american mind that talked about the brain during orgasm... let me quote it:

"During ejaculation, neural activity declines in the amygdala, the brain's seat of vigilance-an apparent sign that men are momentarily throwing caution to the wind. In females, various regions in the brain, including the amygdala virtually shut down at orgasm... Some of the most muted neurons [in females] sat in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex, which may govern self-control over basic desires such as sex. Decreased activity there, the researchers suggest, might correspond to a release of tension and inhibition. The scientists also saw a dip in excitation in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which has an apparent role in moral reasoning and social judgment- a change that may be tied to a suspension of judgment and reflection." (Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008; pg 70)

One could interpret a shutting off of various brain regions in various ways, which i'm sure somehow would correspond with some type of biological processes within the body. Any thoughts on this?


When you have sex your body releases a lot of hormones and other chemicals (dopamine, noradrenaline, DHEA, androgenen, LH, FSH, oestradiol, testosterone, cortisol, vasopressine, dihydrotestosterone, serotonine, growth hormones, adrenaline, oxytocine, progesterone, prolactine, endorfins,...). Sure, sex will have an impact on your biochemistry.

#14 jackinbox

  • Guest
  • 452 posts
  • 4

Posted 11 April 2008 - 12:14 AM

Many years ago I had a prostatitis (inflamation of the prostate). The doctor told me it was because I didn't ejaculate often enough. He told me: "It have to get out!", talking about sperm. It was effectively during a time I didn't have much sex with my girlfriend and didn't have much the "chance" to masturbate.

#15 Heliotrope

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 April 2008 - 12:37 AM

Many years ago I had a prostatitis (inflamation of the prostate). The doctor told me it was because I didn't ejaculate often enough. He told me: "It have to get out!", talking about sperm. It was effectively during a time I didn't have much sex with my girlfriend and didn't have much the "chance" to masturbate.



hey jackinbox, thanks for sharing your illness with me. Hope it got better. well, i guess keep jackin away then:) I looked at a good informative website called JackinWorld, it's really good.

#16 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 11 April 2008 - 05:57 AM

There was this recent article i read on scientific american mind that talked about the brain during orgasm... let me quote it:

"During ejaculation, neural activity declines in the amygdala, the brain's seat of vigilance-an apparent sign that men are momentarily throwing caution to the wind. In females, various regions in the brain, including the amygdala virtually shut down at orgasm... Some of the most muted neurons [in females] sat in the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex, which may govern self-control over basic desires such as sex. Decreased activity there, the researchers suggest, might correspond to a release of tension and inhibition. The scientists also saw a dip in excitation in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, which has an apparent role in moral reasoning and social judgment- a change that may be tied to a suspension of judgment and reflection." (Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008; pg 70)

One could interpret a shutting off of various brain regions in various ways, which i'm sure somehow would correspond with some type of biological processes within the body. Any thoughts on this?


When you have sex your body releases a lot of hormones and other chemicals (dopamine, noradrenaline, DHEA, androgenen, LH, FSH, oestradiol, testosterone, cortisol, vasopressine, dihydrotestosterone, serotonine, growth hormones, adrenaline, oxytocine, progesterone, prolactine, endorfins,...). Sure, sex will have an impact on your biochemistry.


I suppose i meant directly affected by the shutting down of these brain regions, you did however cover so many compounds that i was not aware were even released during this process. I'm sure a lot of them are associated in the shut down... considering the effects of some of them. Thanks for contributing your knowledge :p .

#17 lunarsolarpower

  • Guest
  • 1,323 posts
  • 53
  • Location:BC, Canada

Posted 11 April 2008 - 02:02 PM

I think I may still want to cut back down a little on sex, because it does waste energy and "vital life force."


I was thinking about this perspective a bit more and wondering if it is so pervasive because it serves as an eastern corollary to puritan guilt modified to a belief system that values qi or chi or as you called it here "vital life force."

It just seems like this perspective is entirely too common to be coincidental and still I have yet to see any valid scientific evidence for it with the exception of fluctuations in testosterone levels (sexual excitation raises them).

#18 Heliotrope

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 11 April 2008 - 11:41 PM

I think I may still want to cut back down a little on sex, because it does waste energy and "vital life force."


I was thinking about this perspective a bit more and wondering if it is so pervasive because it serves as an eastern corollary to puritan guilt modified to a belief system that values qi or chi or as you called it here "vital life force."

It just seems like this perspective is entirely too common to be coincidental and still I have yet to see any valid scientific evidence for it with the exception of fluctuations in testosterone levels (sexual excitation raises them).



Well I'm Asian but raised mostly in America, received almost all U.S. education. When I was in China as a little kid, I heard nothing about Qi/Chi as linked to masturbation/sex. Then again, at that innocent pre-purberty age, I did not even know what masturbation is. I read up on some of the puritan/religious values as you put it, and read their 18th/19th doctors refer to semen/sperm as basically "essential oil" and "vital energy source."

I don't see any scientific basis in the views. It's interesting though, because East Asian cultures don't really believe in a Judeo-Christian God, and they don't view masturbation as a guilt/sin, probably more as wasted resources that may have a potential to limit life span say if one ejaculated too much. There are a lot of anecdotal evidence in Chinese literature about ppl who wasted too much semen/sperm and died before a ripe old age, some even died as 30-year-olds. Then again, ppl didn't live as long back then. I believe the martial artists and qi-gong practitioners avoid these ejaculations, trying to convert the relatively impure semen/sperm to Qi/Chi through breathing exercises. Those people then try to transform Qi to Shen, an even higher level substance, like spirit/soul energies. Basically, Qi= psycho-physical energy, Shen= spirit/soul energy. They call semen/sperm Jing, like a regular vital energy, mostly Reproductive Energy. The very first step for them is to curb sexual urges, not ejaculating. It seems very un-scientific and no evidence, but many ppl believe those things and hope to be immortal that way. Some guys practicing these things did live to be over 100 years old, most died at normal ages. Nobody became immortal.

Edited by HYP86, 12 April 2008 - 12:00 AM.


#19 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 12 April 2008 - 09:23 PM

There are a lot of anecdotal evidence in Chinese literature about ppl who wasted too much semen/sperm and died before a ripe old age, some even died as 30-year-olds. Then again, ppl didn't live as long back then. I believe the martial artists and qi-gong practitioners avoid these ejaculations, trying to convert the relatively impure semen/sperm to Qi/Chi through breathing exercises. Those people then try to transform Qi to Shen, an even higher level substance, like spirit/soul energies. Basically, Qi= psycho-physical energy, Shen= spirit/soul energy. They call semen/sperm Jing, like a regular vital energy, mostly Reproductive Energy. The very first step for them is to curb sexual urges, not ejaculating. It seems very un-scientific and no evidence, but many ppl believe those things and hope to be immortal that way. Some guys practicing these things did live to be over 100 years old, most died at normal ages. Nobody became immortal.


That sounds more like a recipe for institutionalized sexual abuse

#20 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 12 April 2008 - 11:09 PM

Personally i look at this whole immortality desire in one specific formula: (quality of life) * (life span) = life. I don't see the point in subjugating anyone to a decreased enjoyment of life in order to increase a numerical value that is not always related to enjoyment levels. So perhaps the best idea is to live modestly but do live...


Personally, I'd say that quality of life becomes nearly meaningless if you ever end up dead: (quality of life)*((lifespan)/infinity) = life. Of course, given limited evidence, masturbation and safe sex is perhaps more likely to save your life (by reducing stress, preventing prostate issues in men, etc) then end up killing you.

#21 Heliotrope

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 13 April 2008 - 07:43 AM

Personally i look at this whole immortality desire in one specific formula: (quality of life) * (life span) = life. I don't see the point in subjugating anyone to a decreased enjoyment of life in order to increase a numerical value that is not always related to enjoyment levels. So perhaps the best idea is to live modestly but do live...


Personally, I'd say that quality of life becomes nearly meaningless if you ever end up dead: (quality of life)*((lifespan)/infinity) = life. Of course, given limited evidence, masturbation and safe sex is perhaps more likely to save your life (by reducing stress, preventing prostate issues in men, etc) then end up killing you.



I don't quite understand the equation, but agreed, we need to live as well as we can for as long as we can. Hopefully we can live comfortably, infinitely.

#22 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 13 April 2008 - 09:04 AM

Personally i look at this whole immortality desire in one specific formula: (quality of life) * (life span) = life. I don't see the point in subjugating anyone to a decreased enjoyment of life in order to increase a numerical value that is not always related to enjoyment levels. So perhaps the best idea is to live modestly but do live...


Personally, I'd say that quality of life becomes nearly meaningless if you ever end up dead: (quality of life)*((lifespan)/infinity) = life.


Sure technically quality of life is more important when there's an increased time that you have to "endure" it... However, we have already figured that the universe will "suffer" an eventual heat death... so i suppose that's an improper formula since at best it'll get somewhat close to infinite and never reach it making it life quality * (value < 1)... :~

So anyways think of it this way... by your rationale... quality of life doesn't matter at all... because death will eventually occur be it now or in a couple thousand years (or whatever your ideal is)... yet, rationally, this doesn't make sense because quality of life is extremely important in enjoying those years, wouldn't you think? Otherwise it just becomes a fear of death rather than a desire to stay alive and experience life...


I don't see any scientific basis in the views. It's interesting though, because East Asian cultures don't really believe in a Judeo-Christian God, and they don't view masturbation as a guilt/sin, probably more as wasted resources that may have a potential to limit life span say if one ejaculated too much. There are a lot of anecdotal evidence in Chinese literature about ppl who wasted too much semen/sperm and died before a ripe old age, some even died as 30-year-olds. Then again, ppl didn't live as long back then. I believe the martial artists and qi-gong practitioners avoid these ejaculations, trying to convert the relatively impure semen/sperm to Qi/Chi through breathing exercises. Those people then try to transform Qi to Shen, an even higher level substance, like spirit/soul energies. Basically, Qi= psycho-physical energy, Shen= spirit/soul energy. They call semen/sperm Jing, like a regular vital energy, mostly Reproductive Energy. The very first step for them is to curb sexual urges, not ejaculating. It seems very un-scientific and no evidence, but many ppl believe those things and hope to be immortal that way. Some guys practicing these things did live to be over 100 years old, most died at normal ages. Nobody became immortal.


if i remember correctly the main reason monks believed such things was because they thought that there was a limited amount of sperm... and since they figured that sperm equates to life somehow... that sperm must have some connectivity with a vital life force... therefore delusion that keeping it by attaining mastery of desires will in turn award you with a prosperous immortal life (you save all those possible lifelines into one life)... to me it's just another form of delusion that has cost people their lives (as derived from any equation of your choosing :~)... monks have been demonstrating amazing mind-body abilities that scientist are researching and have been for sometime, but as far as immortality... if you don't see a 300 year old monk anywhere don't worry about the wisdom :~.

#23 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 13 April 2008 - 03:33 PM

Personally i look at this whole immortality desire in one specific formula: (quality of life) * (life span) = life. I don't see the point in subjugating anyone to a decreased enjoyment of life in order to increase a numerical value that is not always related to enjoyment levels. So perhaps the best idea is to live modestly but do live...


Personally, I'd say that quality of life becomes nearly meaningless if you ever end up dead: (quality of life)*((lifespan)/infinity) = life.


Sure technically quality of life is more important when there's an increased time that you have to "endure" it... However, we have already figured that the universe will "suffer" an eventual heat death... so i suppose that's an improper formula since at best it'll get somewhat close to infinite and never reach it making it life quality * (value < 1)... :~

So anyways think of it this way... by your rationale... quality of life doesn't matter at all... because death will eventually occur be it now or in a couple thousand years (or whatever your ideal is)... yet, rationally, this doesn't make sense because quality of life is extremely important in enjoying those years, wouldn't you think? Otherwise it just becomes a fear of death rather than a desire to stay alive and experience life...


Well, technically the formula doesn't make mathematical sense but it's the closest I could get to what I was thinking. What I meant was that life = (quality of life)* if you surmount all the odds, overcome the heat death and live forever. Otherwise, if you ever die, life = (some positive infinitesimal)**. It would certainly be a larger infinitesimal if you have a long happy life than a short stressful one. However, I'd still consider it infinitely insignificant if you wind up dead in the end. So, yeah, my immortalism is based mainly on fear (and hatred) of death.

*I'm assuming infinity/infinity = 1 but mathematically, it would really be indeterminant (ie. it could be any number)
**There are branches of mathematics that use infinitesimals but I'm not sure they can actually be used this way.

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 13 April 2008 - 03:33 PM.


#24 vyntager

  • Guest
  • 120 posts
  • 2

Posted 13 April 2008 - 08:48 PM

However, I'd still consider it infinitely insignificant if you wind up dead in the end. So, yeah, my immortalism is based mainly on fear (and hatred) of death.


I would say that life is meaningless if it has to end. Or at the very least, to compromise, meaningless if it has to end, unless at some point you want to die. That's my opinion anyway.

Edited by vyntager, 13 April 2008 - 08:50 PM.


#25 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 April 2008 - 02:19 PM

Does eunuchs live longer than other people or appear to age more slowly?Sure there would have to be some people alive now who have due to different factors never gone through puberty.

#26 trevinski

  • Guest
  • 36 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 April 2008 - 06:44 PM

I feel it is only natural to pursue something that is intrinsically pleasurable, and is counter intuitive to view an act that is deeply rooted in our biology as being destructive.

I do feel that sex, like most things, must be controlled and used properly to achieve the greater pleasure it was intended for. If it becomes an issue where bodily urges and addiction to satisfying them begins to run the consciousness, then it translates to some form of metal chaos. Uncontrolled-sexual urges have been known to spark numerous vices.

I believe that the sexual act, in its height, is a means to fully connect yourself( physically, emotionally and perhaps spiritually) with someone you love and are committed to. I'm torn on the perspective of masturbation. Any means to ejaculation entails some form of physical benefits, and it's tough to reason with celibacy for the single person in light of this, but it may also have the tendency to draw one inward and prevent one from seeking a sexual relationship outside of themselves( such sexual relationships have been scientifically proven to be more pleasurable). There's also a lot that has been substantiated about the benefit of human touch that a single person may be withdrawn from.

#27 Heliotrope

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 April 2008 - 07:30 PM

Does eunuchs live longer than other people or appear to age more slowly?Sure there would have to be some people alive now who have due to different factors never gone through puberty.



could be that they age more slowly too, no beard, no deep voice, no developed muscles typical of male, and no male genitals (or at least no testicles). Maybe eunuchs and castratos age more slowly, believing they keep waiting for the puberty that is not gonna occur.

Basically, isn't it true that after our puberty ends, say by our early 20s , we go downhill and start aging?

I read in a Newsweek or Times magazine a long time ago that examined 50 babyboomers who were 50 years or older and how they may live longer with health advices. In that article, it is mentioned that eunuchs do seem to live longer, something about mental patients ripping their own genitals off (shudders ..], or ppl who happened to be that way due to a variety of reasons (testicular cancer?) I vaguely remember some of those eunuchs wound up in mental hospitals, or jails/Prisons , so doctors kept track of their age etc too, and they on average, lived longer. Maybe prison food was meager and they were put on involuntary CR.

interesting though, if eunuchs live as long or longer, then semen/sperm can't be argued as vital substance to human body. Ejaculating them would change hormone levels, mood swings, maybe trigger guilt, but not necessarily cut one's life short

anyway, castration is definitely not an option. Bad way to go to live longer. BUt if I eventually go thru neuro-preservation and they don't regrow my body but give me a robot body, that's effectively like it

Edited by HYP86, 14 April 2008 - 07:36 PM.


#28 VictorBjoerk

  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,763 posts
  • 91
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 14 April 2008 - 10:11 PM

here is an example of what happens to a man that has never gone through puberty.He has not stopped growing although he is 43 years old.
The article mentions that he appears younger than his chronological age.

Does anyone here think he would have lived much longer than average if left untreated?

http://jcem.endojour.../87/12/5430.pdf

#29 Grimm

  • Guest
  • 92 posts
  • 4
  • Location:America

Posted 15 April 2008 - 10:25 AM

I'm fine with the death for sex deal.
  • like x 1

#30 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 15 April 2008 - 06:07 PM

Does eunuchs live longer than other people or appear to age more slowly?Sure there would have to be some people alive now who have due to different factors never gone through puberty.



could be that they age more slowly too, no beard, no deep voice, no developed muscles typical of male, and no male genitals (or at least no testicles). Maybe eunuchs and castratos age more slowly, believing they keep waiting for the puberty that is not gonna occur.

Basically, isn't it true that after our puberty ends, say by our early 20s , we go downhill and start aging?


I would guess that eunuchs live longer for the same reason that women tend to live longer than men. Maybe some of the male hormones are destructive.

Edited by cyborgdreamer, 15 April 2008 - 06:07 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users