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


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

People don't want to cure aging!


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#31 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 02 December 2008 - 08:45 PM

I've been working at 4 nursing homes during my summer holidays, it's sufficient to say aging IS torture, yes some old people are healthy like some people point out -wow she is 95 and still walks around with a walker. . Most people eventually have to move to nursing homes where they do not die in peace but experience involuntary death in excruciating horror and agony.

#32 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 02 December 2008 - 09:30 PM

aikikai: Why do you accept involuntary death?


You answer yourself. If a death is involuntary by example accidents, how can you control that? No one dies voluntarily, and dying by old age is not even that voluntarily today.


aikikai, I'd disagree w/ your phrase "No one dies voluntarily"

Suicide is voluntary death , and suicide makes it into The Top 15 causes of death.

Some are altruistic, they choose death to protect others, like that guy Sidney to protect the other guy in A Tale of Two Cities. Also for some ppl, they'd die as their job, a soldier dies in battle, a Secret Service bodyguard takes a bullet for President of U.S., a terrorist blows himself up...

Edited by HYP86, 02 December 2008 - 09:35 PM.


#33 aikikai

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 December 2008 - 08:46 AM

aikikai: Why do you accept involuntary death?


You answer yourself. If a death is involuntary by example accidents, how can you control that? No one dies voluntarily, and dying by old age is not even that voluntarily today.


aikikai, I'd disagree w/ your phrase "No one dies voluntarily"

Suicide is voluntary death , and suicide makes it into The Top 15 causes of death.

Some are altruistic, they choose death to protect others, like that guy Sidney to protect the other guy in A Tale of Two Cities. Also for some ppl, they'd die as their job, a soldier dies in battle, a Secret Service bodyguard takes a bullet for President of U.S., a terrorist blows himself up...


Yes, that is one exception.
But dying in war is not more voluntarily than driving a car without seat belts. The risk is there, but in different grades. All people take risks, even when you step in to the bathroom (you can slip on the floor).

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:39 PM

But dying in war is not more voluntarily than driving a car without seat belts. The risk is there, but in different grades. All people take risks, even when you step in to the bathroom (you can slip on the floor).


This reminds me of a concept Ive been thinking about, people can be talked into taking risks for just about any reason. People are regularily maimed, mutilated, burned alive, chopped up, messed up etc.. in militaries. Alot of those people only half support or dont even understand at all what they are fighting for. Yet they can be talked into making a sacrifice for it like that?

Well, it occurs to me if people can be got to do those kind of things for many times half assed or even terrible reasons, then they can certainly be got to help cure aging and make large sacrifices for it too. People spending a lot of their time volunteering and giving to this cause could be done on a sacrificial level, but still not come close to the level of sacrifice, maiming, mutilation, that others go through for far less deserving topics.

So as far as "People dont want to cure aging", they do, they can and they will. Its just up to us to rally them. We are like one eyed generals in the land of the blind. They depend on our vision to get us all their. If we fail them then we all die. In a sense, if a person is a life extensionist then it is their duty to lead others. Whatever we have to say to convince them then we need to say it if its worth saving them.

Some of the small efforts combining to help form a rally call on the level of one thats powerful enough to call even half committed people to come and get themselves maimed, is being developed here on lines 36, 37 and 38, (soon to be merged) Help us with that if you are interested. Except in this case the cause is true and noble, and so it will be a lot easier to build and instill this army with charge.

#35 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 04 December 2008 - 06:40 PM

And I don't like the opinion saying that old people are tortured by aging. That is somewhat degrading old people who are fully healthy for their age.


But the reality is that most people in advanced age (let's say over 75) aren't that healthy. Unless you don't die peacefully in your sleep, soon or late aging will carry diseases & dysfunctions. That's inevitable, and I guess nobody is happy, let's say, not to be able to walk anymore, control their bowels or suffer chronic pain. It's not about degrading anyone, it's just about reality. Of course, if you can't change a bad reality, better you accept it. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't recognize that it's bad, and neglet to try to grab any chance to change it.

Edited by Proconsul, 04 December 2008 - 06:46 PM.


#36 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 04 December 2008 - 07:11 PM

I've been working at 4 nursing homes during my summer holidays, it's sufficient to say aging IS torture, yes some old people are healthy like some people point out -wow she is 95 and still walks around with a walker. . Most people eventually have to move to nursing homes where they do not die in peace but experience involuntary death in excruciating horror and agony.


Mycket bra sagt, herr Björk!

My uncle is almost 96 and he can still walk without help and take care of himself. But he has pain in his legs and back, feels often dizzy, and has almost no apetite. He is a shadow of his former self and he says that BEING OLD IS BAD!

I suspect many people think old age is like in pension funds publicity, where you always see healthy, youthful 65 yo people playing tennis and enjoying luxury cruises. So they think: well, aging is not that bad, if you just age 'healthily'. That's about as realistic as thinking that most women can look like supermodels from fashion publicity... What a load of crap!

#37 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,446 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 December 2008 - 07:36 PM

I have found that a lot of people in the 40 to 60 range say (or convince themselves) that getting old will be just fine, they expect they will be at peace with their life, and be able to accept death. They are just trying to justify their "death trance". In reality, every very old person (75 to 100) I have talked to says getting old completely sucks ass (pardon my rough language). The most common line I hear is "don't get old, it is a terrible thing", or some variation of it. The dying process usually includes a decade or more of suffering, illness, constant pain, loss of your memory/identity, and most importantly loss of your independence.

#38 Proconsul

  • Guest
  • 108 posts
  • 1

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:22 AM

Already when I was a child I thought that to become old and die (I'm talking here about the apparently inevitable death that comes with aging, not the possible death from accidents, wars etc. The latter is not pleasant either, but at least you can try and dodge a bullet, while the former death grows slowly and unstoppably inside you) was bad, and I didn't really understand while people didn't even think about that. Like if you are on the death row and you don't care...

I remember the first time I was told that everybody must die, I was perhaps four or five, and my reaction was like: what the f...k, I've just come to this world and you are telling me I have to leave it?!? First I tried to comfort myself with the thought that, well, the fact that everybody has died until now doesn't necessarily mean that I will die too... Then, when I realised the fallacy of this reasoning I felt depressed. And then, after vainly trying to join the mass and lure myself into not bothering with the problem, I decided to do something about it and become a biomedical researcher.

#39 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 05 December 2008 - 02:28 AM

I decided to do something about it and become a biomedical researcher.


Well thank life for you sir, we need all the you's we can get. I salute you.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#40 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 05 December 2008 - 05:51 AM

I've been working at 4 nursing homes during my summer holidays, it's sufficient to say aging IS torture, yes some old people are healthy like some people point out -wow she is 95 and still walks around with a walker. . Most people eventually have to move to nursing homes where they do not die in peace but experience involuntary death in excruciating horror and agony.


Mycket bra sagt, herr Björk!

My uncle is almost 96 and he can still walk without help and take care of himself. But he has pain in his legs and back, feels often dizzy, and has almost no apetite. He is a shadow of his former self and he says that BEING OLD IS BAD!

I suspect many people think old age is like in pension funds publicity, where you always see healthy, youthful 65 yo people playing tennis and enjoying luxury cruises. So they think: well, aging is not that bad, if you just age 'healthily'. That's about as realistic as thinking that most women can look like supermodels from fashion publicity... What a load of crap!


I had to laugh in agreement. Everybody likes the quaint concept of getting older and enjoying a frail, easygoing life. They love the concept of being old because they just cannot fathom it being applied to themselves, rather it applies to all the other old people that exist solely to nurture the narcissistic young people like a vast sea of grandmas, grandpas and ninja masters. Notice how young people turn it into a cartoon when they pantomime an old person, like it's a time out from the dating game or something. People like the fantasy because it's something that they can snap out of without thinking of the consequences. Just like how some women love the idea of being in love, but never contemplate that it is a passing feeling whose ending is often bleak. But the reality is that most old people would murder a rare tortoise to be vital again. Everybody that's old just has to deal with the progressive decline, loss of energy and sodium-free diets *bleeagh* On top of that are the many new deformities and substances you'll find erupting from your body out of the blue nearly every day. Then there's the paranoia that any moment you might curl up and die in an agonizing way, and your last words would be like "shut the god damn bathroom doo....eccch!"

It's funny you would say that about your grandpa because my grandma used to say the same thing, that getting old is the worst thing in the world. In fact only people who are bitter or fearful about the love and marriage game appreciate being old, seeing old age as a release from the responsibility to compete for trophy spouses, and making more kids.

Edited by solbanger, 05 December 2008 - 05:59 AM.


#41 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:01 AM

"all the other old people that exist solely to nurture the narcissistic young people like a vast sea of grandmas, grandpas and ninja masters"

LOL

By the way, I've heard my grandma (who is over 90) say that she's glad that she won't be around for all the technological advancements that will change the world; that there is some comfort in the fact that she won't have to keep up with everything that's happening. I don't think she's bitter, she's always been a very cheerful person, and while the deterioration that comes along with aging probably don't appeal to her (my grandfather had Alzheimer's), I think the idea that "her time will come" does.

I know that kind of thinking doesn't really stand any kind of logical reasoning, but it's one aspect to consider when coming up with arguments to break the aging trance.

#42 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:05 PM

.....that there is some comfort in the fact that she won't have to keep up with everything that's happening. ...
..... I know that kind of thinking doesn't really stand any kind of logical reasoning, but it's one aspect to consider when coming up with arguments to break the aging trance.


Good point, Ive never really thought in depth about how to break that part of the trance before. Im thinking that that sentiment is mostly out of their loyalty to their day and age, and a realization that it seems noble to stick with it and they figure they may as well because they are going to die soon anyways. Im sure we can figure out a way to chip away at that peice of the pro aging trance. Not to mention I mean, my granparents have said that same kind of thing, but my one grandma now went out and got a computer this month, my other grandparents, who I remember chastizing the vcr now have a dvd player. I dont think people that think those kinds of things really mean them. I think its more like a natural reaction for some people to a change in their comfort zones. But people gradually and incrementally get used to anything.

#43 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 05 December 2008 - 08:17 PM

It's funny you would say that about your grandpa because my grandma used to say the same thing, that getting old is the worst thing in the world. In fact only people who are bitter or fearful about the love and marriage game appreciate being old, seeing old age as a release from the responsibility to compete for trophy spouses, and making more kids.


People in the pro aging trance accept death (to a degree, if you want to call it that) and so they never had a reason to contemplate what they would do on a grander scale. Getting your urges and having fun with the dating game and raising a family is something everybody wants to do right away, and about all there is time for. If they contemplated the idea that they might live for indefinity they would see that the big 8 await them. In the pro aging trance though they dont even have the chance to contemplate the possibility of that for them and so it is not a possible motivater for them. Having gone through their infatuation and love days, those people that might "see old age as a release from the responsability to compete for trophy spouses and having kids," only have decrepitute to look forward to, and that is why many people let go, but if they had more to look foward to then many of them would certainly continue on.

#44 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 05 December 2008 - 09:54 PM

The trouble I feel is that I can't argue about the problem of overpopulation. I really don't know what to say, If I would say something like being careful with creating kids people would probably get angry because they believe that everyone has the right to procreate as much as they want whenever they want but not the right to live as long as they want so I keep quiet.

And that's why I really can't argument about curing aging. To be realistic I think that population must be regulated in some way so that people should only be allowed to have kids if someone has chosen volunary death and left an empty place or something similar.
I don't think it's OK for society to say that someone has lived long enough and force them to die so someone else can create their kids on behalf of that persons life.

The right for people to stay alive indefinitely should of course never be violated.

It would be interesting if Shannon Vyff commented on this thread and overpopulation since she has a lot of kids and still think living a extremely long time is realistic to achieve.

#45 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:24 PM

Population control is not predicated on a Zero Sum game. The problem is that longevity has nothing directly to do with overpopulation except in the popular mythology. The reality is that societies that achieve longevity also stabilize their populations voluntarily and even go into negative growth as we see in many European nations.

The best way to reduce overpopulation is to educate and empower women, as well as introduce democratic reforms in authoritarian, war wracked, impoverished nations. This approach is the only positive one that has ever been proven in the real world.

All other forms of population control are draconian and the result of social collapse or natural catastrophe. However the most important thing is that longevity bears no direct correlation what so ever to overpopulation. It certainly doesn't lead to it.

#46 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:01 AM

Population control is not predicated on a Zero Sum game. The problem is that longevity has nothing directly to do with overpopulation except in the popular mythology. The reality is that societies that achieve longevity also stabilize their populations voluntarily and even go into negative growth as we see in many European nations.

The best way to reduce overpopulation is to educate and empower women, as well as introduce democratic reforms in authoritarian, war wracked, impoverished nations. This approach is the only positive one that has ever been proven in the real world.

All other forms of population control are draconian and the result of social collapse or natural catastrophe. However the most important thing is that longevity bears no direct correlation what so ever to overpopulation. It certainly doesn't lead to it.


What do you think about Aubrey de Grey's arguments regarding the overpopulation problem?

#47 Heliotrope

  • Guest
  • 1,145 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:25 AM

what's Aubrey de Grey's arguments regarding overpopulation

#48 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:27 AM

Population control is not predicated on a Zero Sum game. The problem is that longevity has nothing directly to do with overpopulation except in the popular mythology. The reality is that societies that achieve longevity also stabilize their populations voluntarily and even go into negative growth as we see in many European nations.

The best way to reduce overpopulation is to educate and empower women, as well as introduce democratic reforms in authoritarian, war wracked, impoverished nations. This approach is the only positive one that has ever been proven in the real world.

All other forms of population control are draconian and the result of social collapse or natural catastrophe. However the most important thing is that longevity bears no direct correlation what so ever to overpopulation. It certainly doesn't lead to it.


What do you think about Aubrey de Grey's arguments regarding the overpopulation problem?



I assume you mean the arguments found here for example?

First off he is correct to suggest that we should not be denying the future generations the right to address this problem after receiving the benefit of longevity.

Second, he says it is a legitimate question to ask under specific circumstances but he does not suggest it is an inevitable consequence of longevity and as he says we have had some experience dealing with this experience as demonstrated by the spike up n population after the dramatic drop in infant mortality at the beginning of the 20th Century with the introduction of modern hygiene and basic medical care.

Third, he doesn't add but I will, that denying future generations the responsibility the of answering this question is analogous to the generation of *Malthusians* at the turn of the 20th century succeeding in denying the introduction of better hygiene and medical care because it would threaten overpopulation. It is not rational and is actually a fundamentalist doctrine underpinning the arguments of radical religious groups that want to deny all progress in favor of a traditional society. When they are pacifist they can be tolerated but when militant they become terrorists regardless of what vintage religion they started out as. We should not grant this argument legitimacy.

Fourth, the end of infant mortality as a dramatic aspect of population control in the industrialized world was accompanied by a sharp spike upward in female longevity and actual increase in child bearing capacity, however it also came with education, political, and economic empowerment; the result was the drop in numbers of offspring. Does anyone seriously think that all women want to be is baby factories till it kills them?
As I said before the history of the matter shows that the causes and cures for overpopulation are not about longevity, except inversely, societies with longer life expectancies tend to voluntarily demonstrate better population control.

#49 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 06 December 2008 - 03:52 AM

The trouble I feel is that I can't argue about the problem of overpopulation. I really don't know what to say, If I would say something like being careful with creating kids people would probably get angry because they believe that everyone has the right to procreate as much as they want whenever they want but not the right to live as long as they want so I keep quiet.

And that's why I really can't argument about curing aging. To be realistic I think that population must be regulated in some way so that people should only be allowed to have kids if someone has chosen volunary death and left an empty place or something similar.
I don't think it's OK for society to say that someone has lived long enough and force them to die so someone else can create their kids on behalf of that persons life.

The right for people to stay alive indefinitely should of course never be violated.

It would be interesting if Shannon Vyff commented on this thread and overpopulation since she has a lot of kids and still think living a extremely long time is realistic to achieve.



Energy sources will expand in the future to the point where the ecology isn't affected. Food ingredients will come from replicators like on Star Trek. Let people check their egos at the door and offer them New York style flats in every city. Also like what we do with the wealthy make it very expensive for poor people to have children, and if they have more than they can afford, since food will be really cheap, force them all to live in a massive poor person jail *ahem* enclave. That'll teach the self-centered husband not to impregnate his wife with another scamp for the sake of having a higher stake in his sexual status. Overpopulation is all about checking your ego at the door.

Oh and when there are really too many people having babies we can scuttle them to alternate reality Earth, of which we'll find millions in the reflection of a magic mirror of some type. But by then we'd have perfected robo-babes who soothe an immortal man's ego better than a selfish and perfectionist (American) female, and we'll be so happy with our sex dolls that babies become pointless trivialities for the remaining human females that want the token experience.

#50 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 06 December 2008 - 05:23 AM

I use the analogy of this blog to combat the population question. Its an analogy paralleling the aging question with a ware house with 600 people trapped in it forever.

Most of the time though I tell them a concept I heard from somebody around here, I forget who, that when we live longer life spans, the population will go down not up, because people will decide to have kids at a later average in life. Right now most people hurry up and have kids between 20 and 30. When we live indefinently then people wont have kids right away, they will wait until later in life to have their 2 or 3 kids. So if everybody for example starts having kids around the average age of 60 then the population will go down. Ive found that this arguement works almost every time.

#51 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:15 PM

When one realizes that the biggest reason to have children is to ensure the survival of one's genes, immortality means that you don't have to have children.

Sure, you could produce them just for company, but if the world has 12 billion people, surely there's enough company already to go around.

#52 daren

  • Guest
  • 13 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 December 2008 - 02:58 PM

I use the analogy of this blog to combat the population question. Its an analogy paralleling the aging question with a ware house with 600 people trapped in it forever.

Most of the time though I tell them a concept I heard from somebody around here, I forget who, that when we live longer life spans, the population will go down not up, because people will decide to have kids at a later average in life. Right now most people hurry up and have kids between 20 and 30. When we live indefinently then people wont have kids right away, they will wait until later in life to have their 2 or 3 kids. So if everybody for example starts having kids around the average age of 60 then the population will go down. Ive found that this arguement works almost every time.


Wouldn't the on set of menopause effect the birth rate in your example as well? Or are you thinking that it will be delayed with a longer life span?

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#53 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 06 December 2008 - 03:09 PM

Wouldn't the on set of menopause effect the birth rate in your example as well? Or are you thinking that it will be delayed with a longer life span?


Good question but the short answer is yes, the onset of menopause would also slow with the slowing of aging, as well as extending the general reproductive health and lifespan of the potential mother. However there are two caveats to that:

One, this does not automatically extend the viability of the woman's eggs, which are in a kind of naturally occurring stasis since birth and do age for a variety of reasons, resulting in reduced genetic fidelity and higher in vivo infant mortality (miscarriage and/or genetic disease).

Second, menopause itself may soon become a voluntary experience of many women as modern medicine is seeking ways to limit or even eliminate the experience, along with reproductive control.

Actually there is even a third point, cryogenic preservation of eggs will likely make the option of having a child last well into a period far exceeding even current human lifespans, including preserving genetic options for future generations and furthermore, artificial means of gestating the offspring will make carrying a fetus to term also strictly voluntary for women.

#54 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,090 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 06 December 2008 - 05:43 PM

Second, menopause itself may soon become a voluntary experience of many women as modern medicine is seeking ways to limit or even eliminate the experience, along with reproductive control.



I should clarify this point a little. What I am suggesting is that women will soon have the ability to decide whether to menstruate or not and whether to bear children in-vivo or as they already can, ex-vivo through surrogate maternity as opposed to a point in the not too distant future, ex-vivo through artificial womb gestation.

Women (couples actually) already have the ability to be fertilized in vitro and do a gene selection for optimal characteristics and the elimination of potentially negative ones and this aspect will influence social relationships in the future whether we like it or not.

#55 Vgamer1

  • Guest, F@H
  • 763 posts
  • 39
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2008 - 07:28 PM

When one realizes that the biggest reason to have children is to ensure the survival of one's genes, immortality means that you don't have to have children.

Sure, you could produce them just for company, but if the world has 12 billion people, surely there's enough company already to go around.


There is more incentive for individuals to have children than to just reproduce and keep them company. Think of the symbolic meaning of a child. You and the person you love combine your genes to make a new person. In my opinion that goes way beyond just making more people to put on the planet. Having 12 billion other people is cool yea, but having 1 child is something completely different.

#56 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 07 December 2008 - 04:11 AM

This topic has taken on an awsome direction. We compiled some of the techniques for combating the pro aging trance from here and other threads in the google doc on line number 36. If you have any other suggestions please let us know. We can add it for you, add you as an editor for the page and or get you on the team for the project that is is a part of. Some of the topics we have outlined so far to combat the idea that "people dont want to cure aging!" are below, an elaboration of each topic is at that google doc lin:

 Mention it off handedly-
 Additional "over population" rebuttal-
 Avoid people with the Napolean Dynamite syndrome-
 Only mention size and growth and not any limitations-
 Talk about it in terms of "we" and "them"-
 appeal to their sense of activism-
 Leave them escape routes in the convo,
 get people thinking about the big 8-

Once the list is big enough we will polish it up and turn it into a quiz to help train people on how to more effectively combat the pro aging trance.

#57 till

  • Validating
  • 63 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Brisbane

Posted 08 December 2008 - 01:39 AM

Listen to Woody Allen in this Australian ABC interview. And don't get impatient, just because there's stuff about his movies in there, because he has a lot of very good things to say. Those who can't hold their water can skip to the end of the clip, to hear the punchline, but it's a bit like reading the ending of a story first.

Thing is that Allen is probably the most famous of Emortalists, but he hides it under these clownish quips. A lesson to be learned here for all of you.

#58 VictorBjoerk

  • Topic Starter
  • Member, Life Member
  • 1,761 posts
  • 90
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 15 December 2008 - 01:55 AM

well, as I have continued blogging about life extension,science etc I have been spending a lot of time removing hundreds of critical comments.
And I have to my surprise seen that a majority of people even my age(young people) have a very accepting attitude to aging, not at all like newspapers sometimes write that we are so "youth-obsessed" and scared of aging.

I post one of the comments that I removed here.. (in swedish,use google translate) This is a typical comment...

"Själv är jag inte rädd för att bli gammal, det är naturens gång, det måste göras. Visserligen vill jag inte att de ska tvinga mig upp klockan åtta på morgonen på ett ålderdomshem och tvinga in mig i duschen, och jag vill inte äta frukost så tidigt och med andra, jag vill sitta själv på morgonen i mitt rum och njuta av min frukost, och Gud nåde den som tvingar mig på en gudstjänst!

Jag är inte rädd för att lida av demens , jag är inte rädd för att få stela leder, bli matad och inte kunna röra mig. Jag har ändå levt klart mitt liv och har bara min sista väg kvar att fullfölja.

Jag är inte rädd för att inte hinna med det jag ska göra, så fort man är klar med det så vill man prova på mer, sån är människan, vi får aldrig nog. Därför försöker jag njuta så mycket av mitt liv som möjligt, jag ser det som en gåva, men i mitt liv finns inga "måsten", eller inga stress. Något som jag har lärt mig under denna höst.

Dessutom tar inte livet slut för att man blir gammal, har sett många bevis på det. Somliga har återfunnit kärleken t.ex. och somliga som har krämpor och elände men ser ändå det ljusa i livet, och det är helt underbart att se! "

Edited by VictorBjoerk, 15 December 2008 - 02:00 AM.


#59 Shoe

  • Guest, F@H
  • 135 posts
  • 1

Posted 15 December 2008 - 03:31 PM

Why have you removed the comments? Although I don't agree at all with the comment above, I don't think it deserves to be removed. It's both polite and sticking to the subject.

Edited by Shoe, 15 December 2008 - 03:36 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#60 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 15 December 2008 - 06:46 PM

I sent it through a translator but I still cant understand it. It came out as this:


Själv är self nots rädd för that grow old , the är nature gång , the måste göras. Indeed shall self nots that they ska compel me up clock åtta på morning på one ålderdomshem and compel in me in spray , and I will nots äta breakfast så early and with second , I will sits själv på morning in midst room and enjoy mine breakfast , and Almighty nåde the as constrains me på a gudstjänst! Self är nots rädd för that be a prey to deny , self är nots rädd för that få stiffness administrator , become was feeding nor kunna röra me. I have ändå levt clearly midst life and had only mine ultimate väg kvar that fullfölja. Self är nots rädd för that nots film with the self ska göra så fast husband är clear with the så shall husband test på more sån är människan , wes får never enough. Därför försöker self enjoy så very of midst life as möjligt , I see the paternal gåva , but in midst life find inga måsten ", ors inga stress. Något as I have lärt me wonder that höst. Moreover am not grasping life ends för that husband am becoming stale , has seen it all många evidence på the. Somliga had återfunnit kärleken t.ex. and somliga as had krämpor and elände but am seeing ändå the light alive , and the är wholly wondrous that watch! "


Im glad to see that there are people who are moving more and more away from the pro aging trance. Most life extensionists, including myself still have at the least, remnants of the pro aging trance to deal with.

We are working on two projects to this end. One to combat the pro aging trance, "cpat". One of the things that project is doing is developing a quiz to teach interested life extensionists techniques on how to combat the pro aging trance. If you are interested in helping with that or supporting it in any way then let me know. The beginning of the project is being outlined on lines 36, 37 and 38 of the life extension exposure expedition projects list or "leeep".

The other project is aimed at getting life extensionists themselves to step out of their comfort zones and get through any major remnants of the pro aging trance left in them and help with this war like it is the war that it is. That project is being outlined on line 40 of that list. We cant do these projects with out people like you, so please to stop by and help step up the development of these projects.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users