100 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

So is death by accident 100%  It is also not voluntary. Is a heart attack or cancer aging?  Can either be be caused by an accident?   You need to define what you are talking about.  No one is sure they will die from ageing only that we will die from any number of causes which all need our attention if we defeat death.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Heart attack and cancer are viewed from some gerontologists as diseases, connected with the aging process, or some of the such called "aging diseases". If you mean them, when saying "accidents", then you are right. These are among the main causes of death among the people in the developed countries. Science must be developed to battle them.

 

If you by "accidents" mean airplane crashes, car crashes, earthquakes, other natural disasters or something simmilar, then you have to live quite a long time to make their small chance of happening kill you. Most probably first you will die from aging and aging diseases. So, it is again logical to fight mostly the aging, since it is the first 100% chance death, that intends to strike you.

[cats_lover]

You must consider not only the general statistics, but also the individual statistics, your work (police or construction has more risks), where you live (country, area), your vehicle, and many other things...

[shadowhawk]

Heart attack and cancer are viewed from some gerontologists as diseases, connected with the aging process, or some of the such called "aging diseases". If you mean them, when saying "accidents", then you are right. These are among the main causes of death among the people in the developed countries. Science must be developed to battle them.

 

If you by "accidents" mean airplane crashes, car crashes, earthquakes, other natural disasters or something simmilar, then you have to live quite a long time to make their small chance of happening kill you. Most probably first you will die from aging and aging diseases. So, it is again logical to fight mostly the aging, since it is the first 100% chance death, that intends to strike you.

Within a lifetime 100% die from all causes.  If we took just accidents you will not last an indefinite lifetime.  In fact it will be short relatively speaking.  Many diseases are caused by something beside aging such as aids, and I could give a long list.  Sometimes you just get old and die but a great many do not.  We will do very well to live two lifetimes and many  will die from causes beside age.  Cancer is not caused from aging because all old people who die from it are not old.  I know children who have died from heart failure.

[Danail Bulgaria]

 

Within a lifetime 100% die from all causes.  If we took just accidents you will not last an indefinite lifetime.  In fact it will be short relatively speaking.  Many diseases are caused by something beside aging such as aids, and I could give a long list.  Sometimes you just get old and die but a great many do not.  We will do very well to live two lifetimes and many  will die from causes beside age.  Cancer is not caused from aging because all old people who die from it are not old.  I know children who have died from heart failure.

 

 

 

What do you mean by "Within a lifetime 100% die from all causes"? Do you mean, that if our life is long enough we will face even the death threats, that arewith the slightest chance of hapening? Even then the first powerfull and deadly thing, that will strike us, and that has no cure are the aging diseases.

 

"Many diseases are caused by something beside aging"

Yup, you are absolutely right. I absolutely agree with you on that. This is actually a part of my views, because of which I received some negative feedbacks According to me it is impossible to be immortal without the medicine (something, that some people here will rise upon right after they read thins and will think, that I care about their views , furthermore, I believe, that medicine has already the possibilities to defeat some of the aging changes sucessfully, and actually does that, because of which I will get even some more negative feedbacks again but this is oftopic). Even though, that some deadly diseases are caused by somehing else, not from the aging process, if you are not genetically predisposed, and if you manage to protect yourself from the untreatable diseases, such as AIDS (use condoms for example) and if you manage to treat in the early stages the others, that are treatable, then you will be able to live long enough to die from your aging. The aging is the first major death threat against which you have nothing.

 

"Cancer is not caused from aging because all old people who die from it are not old."

Cancer is not caused ONLY because of the aging process. There are many causes of cancer. Again, if you are not genetically predisposed to cancer and if you avoid the cancerogens, you will live long enough to get your aging cancer The cancer rate increases with the age and the chance to get cancer increases with the age. This is a statistical fact, plus every doctor will confirm you, that the majority of the people, who get cancer are old people. Whish it or not, the process of aging has something to do with the cancer. Maybe we don't know yet what exactly it has to do, but it does.

[Danail Bulgaria]

You must consider not only the general statistics, but also the individual statistics, your work (police or construction has more risks), where you live (country, area), your vehicle, and many other things...

 

And when you take all that under consideration, you will make a hudge discovery - you may protect them all by training, being cautious, follow the instructions given by the such called "occupational medicine" and others. You will make also another great discovery - you can't prevent only the aging. Weeee!

[shadowhawk]

 

 

Within a lifetime 100% die from all causes.  If we took just accidents you will not last an indefinite lifetime.  In fact it will be short relatively speaking.  Many diseases are caused by something beside aging such as aids, and I could give a long list.  Sometimes you just get old and die but a great many do not.  We will do very well to live two lifetimes and many  will die from causes beside age.  Cancer is not caused from aging because all old people who die from it are not old.  I know children who have died from heart failure.

 

 

 

What do you mean by "Within a lifetime 100% die from all causes"? Do you mean, that if our life is long enough we will face even the death threats, that arewith the slightest chance of hapening? Even then the first powerfull and deadly thing, that will strike us, and that has no cure are the aging diseases.

 

"Many diseases are caused by something beside aging"

Yup, you are absolutely right. I absolutely agree with you on that. This is actually a part of my views, because of which I received some negative feedbacks According to me it is impossible to be immortal without the medicine (something, that some people here will rise upon right after they read thins and will think, that I care about their views , furthermore, I believe, that medicine has already the possibilities to defeat some of the aging changes sucessfully, and actually does that, because of which I will get even some more negative feedbacks again but this is oftopic). Even though, that some deadly diseases are caused by somehing else, not from the aging process, if you are not genetically predisposed, and if you manage to protect yourself from the untreatable diseases, such as AIDS (use condoms for example) and if you manage to treat in the early stages the others, that are treatable, then you will be able to live long enough to die from your aging. The aging is the first major death threat against which you have nothing.

 

"Cancer is not caused from aging because all old people who die from it are not old."

Cancer is not caused ONLY because of the aging process. There are many causes of cancer. Again, if you are not genetically predisposed to cancer and if you avoid the cancerogens, you will live long enough to get your aging cancer The cancer rate increases with the age and the chance to get cancer increases with the age. This is a statistical fact, plus every doctor will confirm you, that the majority of the people, who get cancer are old people. Whish it or not, the process of aging has something to do with the cancer. Maybe we don't know yet what exactly it has to do, but it does.

 

I mean that the very longest living in one lifetime will live into their 110s but that is very rare.  So i think this is a very lucky lifetime.  The average person will die long before that.  A whole litany of things will kill them, heart failure and cancer are among those and there are various causes for that.   Any view that seeks to defeat death must consider all these things otherwise in a short time something is going to kill us and it won't be ageing.

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 September 2014 - 01:41 AM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

But we (at leas I) consider them when fighting against the aging diseases.

[corb]

 

While waiting for a way to immortality, should we live in a bunker?

 

Immortality is a religious concept. There is nothing eternal, even time is just a byproduct of the phyiscal interactions in our universe and will cease to exist at some point.

 

Live your life normally. Don't take extreme risks. You should be fine. Freak accidents happen regardless and you can't stop them.

If anti aging regenerative medicine becomes available in your lifetime consider it a bonus.

 

If you worry about every little thing you will never enjoy life, there will always be the next biggest risk factor, are you going to spend your life regardless of how long it is trying to eliminate every risk? You might be suffering from hyperchondria if that's the case.

 

 

Sometimes you just get old and die but a great many do not.

If we go by the statistics most people in the developed world easily reach their old age. The mortality rates per 100000 are extremly low - one in a thousand men dies before reaching their 70s, the rate is even lower for women.

Aging is the biggest risk factor you will face in your lifetime regardless how long it is.

[shadowhawk]

I don't know where you are getting these stats but I think they are wishful thinking.  I have two brothers who both died from accidents.  I went to my high school reunion and of 480, 20 were already dead.  They are dropping like flies.  Way more than 1 in a thousand.  My family has a facebook page which is private.  We just did a survey of what people died from and few died from old age.  Very few supe-rcenturians.  In fact none.  Accidents and disease will get most of us within two lifetimes even if we cured old age.

[corb]

 

I don't know where you are getting these stats but I think they are wishful thinking.

Official EU census data.

 

[shadowhawk]

You mean, put another way, 999 out of every 1000 dies of old age, bot from some other cause in Europe?  What is your source?  So if we could solve old age, almost no one would die.

[corb]

In the West the premature (before 65) death rate is extremely low. If we include Eastern Europe it's goes from less than a % to 30% - because healthcare in the east is significantly worse, but bare in mind even then the statistics show age related pathologies as the main cause of death.

 

 Leading causes of death in Europe:
fact sheet
Noncommunicable diseases
•Noncommunicable diseases – such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – account for 80% of deaths in the
European Region. Diseases of the circulatory system (ischaemic heart disease,
stroke, etc.) are the most important cause of premature death (before the age
of 65) in the Region, accounting for nearly 50% of the total (Fig. 1). Cancer is the
second leading cause, accounting for nearly 20%, while injuries and poisoning
are responsible for 9% of deaths (Fig. 2).
•Disease mortality patterns vary widely across the Region, between countries
and by age and gender.
•About 30% of deaths in the European Region occur before the age of 65.
•With the ageing population, the risk of cancer is rising. Cancer is the main cause
of premature death in 28 of the 53 countries in the Region, and is predicted to
further increase by 2020.

 

A 30 year old is more capable of recuperating from injury than a 60 year old so even those 9% could be lowered significantly with anti aging medicine.
Still from all the statistics I've read most people easily reach their later 50s which is old age. Then cancer or cardiovascular disease become an ever bigger risk and eventual the cause of death.

 

So in short, yes we can lower the mortality rate significantly if we had a way of figthing age related damage.

[cats_lover]

Maybe it makes more sense to analyze the odds based on your age range.

For example, in US (2011) the leading cause of death for people aged 1-24 years was accidents (38%), and second one was homicide/suicide (13%). If you are in the range 1-24 years old you must pay attention to these factors. It is a good time to change your motorbike for a car with airbag, and avoid crazy people who could kill you (I guess).

If you are ageded 45-64 years, cancer is the leading cause of death (32%) and Heart disease the second one (21%), so you can go to visit the doctor more often, and also practice a cardio training program.

 

Source of the picture: http://www.cdc.gov/n...riefs/db115.htm

[corb]

But notice how those almost 40% are taken from JUST 40000 deaths.

It only sounds significant but then you realize even heart disease, suicide and cancer in the twenties to forties range have about the same mortality rate per part of the population.

The mortality rate raises with age because age is the main risk factor.

[cats_lover]

But notice how those almost 40% are taken from JUST 40000 deaths.

It only sounds significant but then you realize even heart disease, suicide and cancer in the twenties to forties range have about the same mortality rate per part of the population.

The mortality rate raises with age because age is the main risk factor.

 

Of course, for example, numeber of homicides is the same at any age range (i guess), the reason why the % of deads by homicide decrease with age is because the number of deads increase.

Taking this into consideration, i think that this is very imporntan information for those who are trying to increase their chances of survival, because when you are young, you should emphasize the risk factors for your age, and also take in considertaion preventive actions for those factors that causes dead within a future range of age.

Edited by cats_lover, 07 October 2014 - 04:47 PM.

[cats_lover]

By the way... answering the initial question of thread...

After 45 years (age) cancer, haert disease, Chroninc lower respiratory and liver diseasses (and then alzheimers and stroke) are responsible for over 60% of deaths.

These diseases are strongly related to a sedentary lifestyle, not only in this age but also as a sedentary lifestyle  between 1-40 years.

 

Assuming that live in a bunker is an extremely sedentary lifestyle, and taking also into consideration the physiological and psychological harm of solitary confinement (scientifically proven), and also, the disorders caused by the no exposure to sunlight.

I would hypothesize that: live in a bunker significantly increases the chances of dying

Edited by cats_lover, 07 October 2014 - 04:59 PM.

[shadowhawk]

  Great stuff cats_lover.  Given two lifetimes what would be the odds?  Old age would then  catch up with those left?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

By the way... answering the initial question of thread...

After 45 years (age) cancer, haert disease, Chroninc lower respiratory and liver diseasses (and then alzheimers and stroke) are responsible for over 60% of deaths.

These diseases are strongly related to a sedentary lifestyle, not only in this age but also as a sedentary lifestyle  between 1-40 years.

 

Assuming that live in a bunker is an extremely sedentary lifestyle, and taking also into consideration the physiological and psychological harm of solitary confinement (scientifically proven), and also, the disorders caused by the no exposure to sunlight.

I would hypothesize that: live in a bunker significantly increases the chances of dying

 

The bunker is just the first example that came to my mind of a safe-house. You do not have to think it in the literal sense.

Something like: http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=606223

 

What I meant was if we were to live a life as without risk as possible.
My conclusion (like most of yours) is that it makes no sense to be paranoid because it is impossible to eliminate risk, and over a certain probability (10 ^ -5), the risks are too difficult to assess.

[cats_lover]

  Great stuff cats_lover.  Given two lifetimes what would be the odds?  Old age would then  catch up with those left?

 

Well, i dont know because i dont know how living two lifetimes can affect this data. Surely affect it drastically. And of course, if life expectancy was doubled, then the odds of dying from accidents would be greater, because now you have more time to having one, but i dont know how this can affect the % (the real data).

A problem that occurred before when this was discussed in this thread was a misuse of the laws of probability.

If the odds of dying from an accident are 10% in 90 years (90 posible years of life expectancy for example), the odds of dying from an accident living 180 years are'nt 20%. (is not 10% + 10%).

 

The odds of getting heads when tossing a coin is 50% (1/2). If you tossing two coins the odds of getting heads in a coin are not 100% = 50% + 50%, is even possible that the two coins show tails. The chances of getting heads is 75%. You can toss finite coins (1000 for example) and will always exist the possibility of not getting a head on any of them.

Using the laws of probability correctly, if the odds of dying from an accident in 1 lifetimes is 10% then:

2 lifetimes : 19% odds of accidental death
3 lifetimes : 27,1% odds of accidental death
4 lifetimes : 34,4% odds of accidental death
5 lifetimes : 40,9% odds of accidental death
6 lifetimes : 46,8% odds of accidental death
...
10 lifetimes : 65,1% odds of accidental death

(This odds represent the chance of accidental death before reach your maximal age).

Edited by cats_lover, 07 October 2014 - 06:56 PM.

[cats_lover]

 

By the way... answering the initial question of thread...

After 45 years (age) cancer, haert disease, Chroninc lower respiratory and liver diseasses (and then alzheimers and stroke) are responsible for over 60% of deaths.

These diseases are strongly related to a sedentary lifestyle, not only in this age but also as a sedentary lifestyle  between 1-40 years.

 

Assuming that live in a bunker is an extremely sedentary lifestyle, and taking also into consideration the physiological and psychological harm of solitary confinement (scientifically proven), and also, the disorders caused by the no exposure to sunlight.

I would hypothesize that: live in a bunker significantly increases the chances of dying

 

The bunker is just the first example that came to my mind of a safe-house. You do not have to think it in the literal sense.

Something like: http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=606223

 

What I meant was if we were to live a life as without risk as possible.
My conclusion (like most of yours) is that it makes no sense to be paranoid because it is impossible to eliminate risk, and over a certain probability (10 ^ -5), the risks are too difficult to assess.

 

 

Yes, you're right, it bothers me when people interpret literally something i wanted to express in a "metaphorical" way and now I'm doing the same, hahaha.

I think, besides worrying about things that could kill us, we should also worry about the things that allow us to live more. Many studies show that people who live with a partner live longer... I think that live in contact with nature would also allow us to live more... Regular enjoyable exercise... Generate an unproblematic familiar/work environment...

Maybe the changes that allow us to live longer are those that also allow us to enjoy better the life.

I see the metaphor of the bunker as an unpleasant and dark change you should make to your life to live more (do not say you've wanted to express so, it's the way I see it). Maybe we can make more pleasant changes to live more

Edited by cats_lover, 07 October 2014 - 06:49 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

 

  Great stuff cats_lover.  Given two lifetimes what would be the odds?  Old age would then  catch up with those left?

 

....

 

If the odds of dying from an accident are 10% in 90 years (90 posible years of life expectancy for example), the odds of dying from an accident living 180 years are'nt 20%. (is not 10% + 10%).

 

The odds of getting heads when tossing a coin is 50% (1/2). If you tossing two coins the odds of getting heads in a coin are not 100% = 50% + 50%, is even possible that the two coins show tails. The chances of getting heads is 75%. You can toss finite coins (1000 for example) and will always exist the possibility of not getting a head on any of them.

Using the laws of probability correctly, if the odds of dying from an accident in 1 lifetimes is 10% then:

2 lifetimes : 19% odds of accidental death
3 lifetimes : 27,1% odds of accidental death
4 lifetimes : 34,4% odds of accidental death
5 lifetimes : 40,9% odds of accidental death
6 lifetimes : 46,8% odds of accidental death
...
10 lifetimes : 65,1% odds of accidental death

(This odds represent the chance of accidental death before reach your maximal age).

 

 

In order to survive 2 lifetimes or more, you have to defeat the age related diseases!!! How many times you want to write it to you?
 

The death from age related diseases is the first big thing, that you have to overcome if you want to be immortal !!!!

[cats_lover]

In order to survive 2 lifetimes or more, you have to defeat the age related diseases!!! How many times you want to write it to you?
 

The death from age related diseases is the first big thing, that you have to overcome if you want to be immortal !!!!

 

 

Assuming that you can live two lifetimes (or 3 or 4 lifetimes, etc), that means you have changed drastically the odds of dying for age related diseases.

 

My calculations are assuming that the odds of having an accident should remain unchanged.
 

[Danail Bulgaria]

After 2 or 3 lifetimes,the numbers per year may be completely different.

[cats_lover]

After 2 or 3 lifetimes,the numbers per year may be completely different.

 

Yes, of course, if you can live 2 or 3 lifetimes you are changeing everything drastically. I think that % will change so much.
 

[shadowhawk]

No one has defined an aged death.  Accidents and other illness will kill us all if age does not do it.  I might also add it will be very soon in the big picture.  So, yes try to stop aging but heart disease or cancer are just around the corner.  Don't forget them if you think you will, with this body, live forever.  I don't like any of them.

Edited by shadowhawk, 09 October 2014 - 07:01 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

No one has defined an aged death.  Accidents and other illness will kill us all if age does not do it.  I might also add it will be very soon in the big picture.  So, yes try to stop aging but heart disease or cancer are just around the corner.  Don't forget them if you think you will, with this body, live forever.  I don't like any of them.

 

In the medicine, when some medical starts digging in the concept of died from an old age, he reaches always to one and the same fact, that to die from aging means to die from the age related diseases. So far noone has died only because he is 100 years old. This factis supported also from autopsy data.
 

In brief: The medicine has defined the aged death, as death from age related diseases. Among them are heart disease and the cancer.

 

I would prefer to live my life outside the bunker and to do what I can in order to live longer or forever - work to collect money, read about the different concepts, try to develope some of them, maybe, this sort of things. If you do them your chances for immortality are higher than if you do nothing and live in a bunker. 

[cats_lover]

 

No one has defined an aged death.  Accidents and other illness will kill us all if age does not do it.  I might also add it will be very soon in the big picture.  So, yes try to stop aging but heart disease or cancer are just around the corner.  Don't forget them if you think you will, with this body, live forever.  I don't like any of them.

 

In the medicine, when some medical starts digging in the concept of died from an old age, he reaches always to one and the same fact, that to die from aging means to die from the age related diseases. So far noone has died only because he is 100 years old. This factis supported also from autopsy data.
 

In brief: The medicine has defined the aged death, as death from age related diseases. Among them are heart disease and the cancer.

 

Well, think about AIDS; no one dies of AIDS, but the damage that AIDS does on the immune system causes death by renal failure, heart failure or a simple flu (among other death causes). So, there is no death from AIDS, but we can consider that AIDS was the cause of these deaths.

 

Something very similar happens with aging.

Edited by cats_lover, 10 October 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Danail Bulgaria]

Well, think about AIDS; no one dies of AIDS, but the damage that AIDS does on the immune system causes death by renal failure, heart failure or a simple flu (among other death causes). So, there is no death from AIDS, but we can consider that AIDS was the cause of these deaths.

 

Something very similar happens with aging.

 

 

Absolutely
 

[shadowhawk]

Even stars like our sun die.  Does the second law of thermodynamics ultimately kill.  There is a time we didn't live will there also be a time we don't live in the future.  We already have not lived indefinitely.