a4mula t1_j3la67q wrote
Reply to comment by Desperate_Food7354 in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354
That's what aging is. Aging is not a disease. It's a passage of time.
That's entirely different than internal systems that are degrading because of time.
Otherwise, a perfectly healthy 80-year-old would be considered diseased just because of their age.
Flaw in logic much?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3labyv wrote
Mental gymnastics much? Do you want me to name every biological process that increases our mortality and risk for other diseases due to the subset of issues as a result of the biological mechanisms behind the subset disease of ‘aging’ for you to understand what I am talking about without going into cognitive dissonance? Scarring isn’t just a single mechanism either, must mean scarring is just an attempt at healing the body with no underlying mechanism with that logic.
a4mula t1_j3lap01 wrote
It's not mental gymastics. There's clearly a difference between disease and the symptoms of disease and you're classically confusing the two.
But good luck with that. I'm sure it'll help you to come up with an appropriate solution. I hear they're looking for more Alzheimer's researchers. Sounds like you'd fit right in. Maybe you can milk it for a few more decades. Hell, it's tenure, steady white papers and hella funding. Doesn't have nearly the distaste of chasing the fountain of youth.
GayHitIer t1_j3lbjjn wrote
I never get you people, always bashing people for being optimistic about something in our lifetime, the whole natural argument is pure bs, what natural things do we humans do today? Wearing clothes, glasses and going around with smartphones and wide access to the web.
You disregard people because you think it's impossible, which again is a stupid argument.
People said we would never achieve flying and look at us now..
a4mula t1_j3lbu5j wrote
It's not that. It's that you have a flawed approach and you're not going to be of service to anyone, let alone me, with it.
You're chasing something we already know the answer quite firmly to.
What causes aging? Time.
That's a different question than what causes age-related deterioration.
Get your perspective right and maybe you'll make progress, which I'd gladly welcome.
But you've been led to believe that we can look at symptoms and somehow magically assess the disease from that. You can't.
Learn the lessons of cancer researchers that the Alzheimer's researchers still have either not gotten, or intentionally ignore.
It's your choice. If you want to waste the next 30 years of your life, you're free to. Doesn't cost me a dime.
You're not going to cure aging. That's the dumbest fucking concept you could have.
You might cure age-related disease. But not if you keep confusing it for its symptoms.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lcdzi wrote
DNA methylation is on of the hall-markers of measuring biological aging. We are not talking about chronological aging. A 100,000 year old could theoretically have the DNA methylation of a 20 year old which would include many other health characteristics of a 20 year old versus the average biologically aged 80 year old.
a4mula t1_j3ld8gr wrote
Sounds like you've cured aging. Oh... that's right. People still dropping dead. Hmm. Funny, I don't recall anyone ever really dying of age.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ldmry wrote
What. I said we have a way to measure it.
a4mula t1_j3ldzc5 wrote
Wonderful. So that's led to the discovery of the mechanism that triggers age-related disease?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3le7xe wrote
DNA methylation produces senescent cells in which forget their role, the epigenome is tagged with new methyl groups that causes DNA transcription in the wrong places which leads to a lot of the damage we see in aging, I am not an expert in this field but I am only here to argue the hypocrisy we have towards other natural processes that kill us and not the one we don’t currently have a solution for and affects everyone.
a4mula t1_j3lexln wrote
Aging does not kill us. It's never killed anyone. Ever. Not once. In our entire history, not just ours. Of all living creatures. Ever.
Nothing has ever died from aging. Contrary to lazy doctors that have no problems at all writing it on death certificates.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lf5lk wrote
Right, and nobody has died of being shot in the head by a bullet, it was merely the loss of blood and brain tissue that causes the death.
a4mula t1_j3lf8a5 wrote
At least in that example you have a clear cause.
What's the clear cause with aging again? Get back to me. I'll wait.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lfjh8 wrote
If aging is a slow bullet then the loss of proper tissue function and role, exponential free radical damage, build up of protein in the wrong places, cellular degradation, probably some more I’m missing.
a4mula t1_j3lfwgq wrote
Tell me please. What is Alzheimer's? I know it's a disease. Is it a virus? Is it an infection?
Surely this is an easy answer right. We've been searching for a cure with billions in funding for at least as long as I've been alive, and that's no short time.
Easy questions, easy answers, right?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lg60h wrote
I’m not a biological text book, like I said I am here to argue about the hypocrisy of my original post. Everything is a cause and effect relationship so the protein buildup likely comes from some cell expressing some protein somewhere it shouldn’t be, go look it up.
a4mula t1_j3lgb0w wrote
I don't have to look it up. I rarely ask questions I don't already know the answers to.
Here's the answer.
Nobody fucking knows. Not a clue. So how are we searching for a cure, when we don't even know what the fucking disease is?
We attack the symptoms that's how.
Because that's sustainable.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lgff6 wrote
Well it’s a good thing this is a singularity sub, we as humans are limited in our intelligence, silicon isn’t, our premise appears to be that AGI will solve the problems much quicker than we can. Also asking questions is the point of learning something new, if not it isn’t a question.
a4mula t1_j3lgt5q wrote
I really hate not responding. I do. And I suspect this even counts. But I'm just going to fucking ignore your comment. I hope you don't mind. It's not going to go well for either of us if we continue down this line, and I'd like it if we could at least part friends. I'm an asshole, but it's not for the sake of such. It's because it's really fucking tough to gently walk people through how they have their thoughts fucked up.
But this is another one. Because machines, they aren't intelligent, they behave intelligently, on their good days.
I would have thought that by now most in this sub would have spent enough time with ChatGPT to have that shit hammered into them pretty deep.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lh5ch wrote
The laws of physics allows us to exist, the smartest of us are the known minimum of intelligence that can exist, combining those two it can be hypothesized that we can create intelligence, given the nature of our biology we cannot simply add more brain, but we can add more computer to a computer. Even without adding more computer or more intelligence, an isaac newton in a computer would run 300,000x faster than his human self and have access to the entire internet. 300,000x figure coming from speed of light vs axon btw. If you don’t want to respond, farewell.
a4mula t1_j3lhicc wrote
Sure. Define that word you're using so loosely. Intelligence. Where does it come from?
Dunno? Guess what. It's another one that nobody fucking does. There's zero evidence that we generate it.
If we don't?
What then?
That's right, you wasted 30 fucking years because you were too fucking stupid to define the words you're using.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lhpwp wrote
Whatever intelligence is, the laws of physics allow for it, meaning it can be replicated.
a4mula t1_j3li21y wrote
Yeah? Where's your evidence for that?
Is your consciousness allowed by the laws of physics too? What about Qualia? What about subjective experience in general?
Just show me the evidence bro, and I'll jump full steam ahead.
Don't dig too hard. Hell I'll help you out.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lit1b wrote
I could have a kid, is that not me creating intelligence? Consciousness is a completely subjective experience, we can make definitions of what it means to be conscious but a chat bot could pull off being conscious to you if it gave the right answers, IRL you could talk to me and It would be impossible to know if there is a self aware ‘conscious’ thinker within your head as I am not inside of it, all I’ll ever know is what is inside of my own head so it’s extremely subjective and so I don’t really think it matters all that much as long as whatever we create produces results.
a4mula t1_j3lj6iu wrote
You could have a kid. Certainly. I'd even agree that you'd be creating a physical body that comes fully equipped with a brain.
But you're clearly not creating intelligence. Intelligence isn't a brain. It's not a body. It's the interactions of those things with information.
I can make a CPU, doesn't mean I can play favorite video game on it.
And that's just a simple analogy. After all, intelligence isn't software or a motherboard or memory or a psu either.
It's not even the video game itself. Because those are all simple concepts. Very simple concepts next to what we're talking about.
Again, Just define that word Intelligence for me. It should be easy. Fuck we've all said the word a million times. Surely we know what it is. Right?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ljglu wrote
Defining intelligence to me is like defining consciousness to me and then trying to prove to me you’re conscious. As long as it produces results.
a4mula t1_j3ljt2h wrote
lol The Shut Up and Calculate method of AI. Sure. I like it. The difference is that the Copenhagen Interpretation produced results.
Funny how the concept of consciousness as a function of informational complexity has yet to.
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3othzr wrote
I think you are not an asshole at all, you just seem unhappy and a tad impolite. You probably lead a life in non-Reddit reality where you need to be polite all the time and are fed up. But OP is really not your enemy.
Stay safe. Btw I don’t hate you.
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3ot9k9 wrote
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3osx2k wrote
It’s a disease with mutlifactorial causes. There are many diseases out there that don’t have just ONE cause.
A good and pretty common example being cardiovascular conditions which have genetic, lifestyle and traumatic factors among others contributing to their manifestation.
If you want to work on a better definition of a disease like Alzheimer’s, join these guys who are working on the definitions of this disease:
https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/xwcq-7092/download
Or try and go into research of its treatment. But bashing OP for their quite knowledgeable approach isn’t polite. And shines bad light on you.
sumane12 t1_j3lfboz wrote
People don't die or get sick from ageing, they die and get sick from age related diseases.
A 2 year old can die from the same thing as a 90 year old, its just extremely unlikely due to their ability to recover.
The cell degradation that occurs in the elderly, happens in young people at a much slower rate, it just increases over time to the point that you are exponentially more likely to die from something you previously would have recovered from.
Ageing CAN be cured, we literally copy our cells into our children, we just need to figure out the process into ourselves. It might be impossible today, but eventually it won't be
a4mula t1_j3lffeb wrote
Finally, someone I can upvote. Ty good sir or good ma'am. I'm sorry for all of the mental gymnastics it took to get here, but at least someone finally had a light come on.
Edit. I lied. I didn't read all the way through lol.
Aging will never be cured. Age-related disease can be cured. I know these things are subtle. They're tough. But it's important, otherwise you're going to keep looking for ways to cure something that isn't a disease and is incapable of being cured. You were so close though. Still. High Five.
sumane12 t1_j3llkxu wrote
>Aging will never be cured.
The fact that you made this statement, just shows how little you understand the subject.
Apart from the fact that you made a blanket statement ignoring all the progress that has been made, in every area over the years where people have asserted something 'cannot be done', you also don't define your argument.
A good way to define your statement would be "it's impossible to avoid metabolic cellular damage within an active agent " this is a true statement because if not, it violates Newton's third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The question is not whether we can cure aging, it's about whether we can slow cellular degradation to the point that a repair can be done. We know this is possible as I mentioned earlier, we can pass on our genetic information at any age and we still get a newborn.
a4mula t1_j3llw4l wrote
>The fact that you made this statement, just shows how little you understand the subject.
I stopped there. Nothing you can say after this has merit.
Let me ask you a question.
Can you cure puberty?
Perhaps you say, but why in the fuck would you ever want to?
Now, you're getting it.
That's right. Puberty is a natural process that allows children to develop into adults.
But hey Mr. Smarty Pants? Isn't that also a product of aging?
So when the fuck are you going to cure it?
edit:
Fuck, that logic shit is a bitch. When are you going to understand? Aging in a natural process we must all go through. There is nothing to cure. It's not a disease.
Stop trying to cure aging you dumb fuck and instead focus on the natural biological systems that are triggered by it. Just like puberty is. Just don't cure that one.
MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3m4l8h wrote
Puberty doesn’t cause death, aging does. That’s why it’s called a disease. You’re not very fast are you.
a4mula t1_j3sby36 wrote
Fast? No, I'm a human. I take it you've not lifted those knuckles too far as one?
Tell me. You know anyone that has died from aging?
MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3se15s wrote
Plenty
a4mula t1_j3sfa17 wrote
Do tell. This will be a story for the ages. Call the press first. Notify the world. Because you're about to tell a story that's never happened in the history of life before.
Nothing dies from aging. Things die because the natural processes that allow them to age stop functioning.
MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sgcff wrote
Aging allows such vulnerability to take place. A person getting stabbed and you’re so adamant in removing the knife as opposed to the murderer. Aging is not like puberty, puberty is by design and aging is part of nature’s limitation. Playing the semantic game as opposed to looking at the functional relation between objects is just stupid. Whether we categorize it as a disease or not is not important, the fact remains that people are better off without it and it’s the shortest and the most straightforward solution to longevity. You’re not very bright are you.
a4mula t1_j3sgtw5 wrote
Aging also allows for us to exist.
You cannot exist without aging.
It's not the problem.
The problem is that there are biological (and mechanical, teeth, broken bones, a fucking safe landing on your head) processes that tend to be activated as we age.
Solve those.
MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sh5jl wrote
> Aging also allows for us to exist.
Wrong
> You cannot exist without aging.
Wrong
> It's not the problem.
And wrong, nice try.
a4mula t1_j3shs1x wrote
At this point, I'm just going to ignore you. I'm tempted to block you as a user entirely. I've never done that in my entire history here, hell I'd have to look it up, and I'm fucking lazy. But I'm tempted to.
Because you show more willful ignorance than any human I've ever interacted with on this site, and that number has to be at least in the tens of thousands at this point. Maybe more.
MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sm248 wrote
Sure, I’M the one who’s willfully ignorant. Keep on living in your own bubble buddy, clearly no one agrees with you.
a4mula t1_j3smfw7 wrote
It's not that, you were just too quick to find the first thread you could tug on.
Your laziness and unwillingness to think for yourself got the right one though.
Because with my threads come logic, rational, and someone that can not only outthink you by large margins but has the word skills to made it obvious to all.
You can keep tugging, or maybe you should read a little more and find out just what the fuck it is I'm saying, why I'm saying it, and what happens to others if they don't take the easy route to it.
MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3stfka wrote
Here r/iamverysmart go back where you came from. You can throw some of your brainless pseudo-intellectual argument over there instead.
a4mula t1_j3stotx wrote
lol. Look around friend. This aint world news. If you're not bright, why are you here?
MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sttff wrote
Oh I am, you’re just too stupid to understand.
a4mula t1_j3sudzv wrote
Let's start the process. Shall we. It's almost like surgery, but don't worry, I'm gifted with cutting.
You're bright? That's your claim? Because there aren't too many bright folks slumming in subs whose only goal is to mock logic and rationale.
That's not the way being bright works. So, is there anything else you've brought to the table, because bath water warm threats of exposing my intelligence?
They don't bother me.
edit: Are you that vacuous that it takes an hour to establish the merit of your claim? If so, that's alright take all the time you need. I'll pick it back up next time I'm around. That's the beauty of Reddit, it works on my time schedule.
sumane12 t1_j3lqgmw wrote
>Can you cure puberty
I stopped there. Nothing you can say after this has merit.
InUniverse t1_j3mos3n wrote
> Perhaps you say, but why in the fuck would you ever want to?
This sounds to me like a faliure of creativity on your part. "I can't think of a reason why someone would want to not go through puberty, so nobody should ever be allowed to do it!"
And if we follow through the comparison to the other side: "I can't think of a reason why people would want their bodies to not gradually break down and become unusable"? L O fucking L, that's all I can say.
Trick_Hawk5491 t1_j3lc9tc wrote
You sound a lot like people who were adamant about humans never achieving flight.
GayHitIer t1_j3lct4z wrote
What we know right now doesn't apply to what happens tomorrow or the next decade, making statements about what is possible and impossible has always been stupid, nobody 100% understands what we will achieve after we hit singularity.
a4mula t1_j3ld0qi wrote
Lord Kelvin. And that's not what I'm proposing even in the least. I've been a firm proponent of life extension. Since at least the 90s. But somehow this sub seems to think it's a new idea that just came up.
It's not. And from the very beginning the people that have been serious about it have understood a fundamental truth. It has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with biological processes that tend to be initiated with age.
There's an ocean of difference between those things.
Ortus14 t1_j3lifcd wrote
So there's two definitions for aging currently. There's chronological aging, and biological aging.
https://www.britannica.com/science/aging-life-process
The op was referring to biological aging.
a4mula t1_j3liqo3 wrote
And I'm stating something that is true, regardless of your definition.
Aging isn't a disease. There are biological processes that we associate with aging that lead to the degradation of the human body.
Just fucking words right?
Mental Gymastics.
Except it's not, because read through this shit show of a thread.
There's so much confusion it makes me dizzy.
It's not the words. it's the ideas and thoughts behind them.
The understandings.
And you might say, meh... who gives a fuck.
To which I'd point you directly to billions of dollars wasted by experts, doctors, scientists, politicians, researchers, and mostly those suffering from disease.
Because they didn't understand this simple difference.
GayHitIer t1_j3lc7wl wrote
What are you smoking? What I am referring to is the biological age not chronological age, it's already been proven that we can turn the biological clock back in mice by a quite big amount. Sure it will take time, but even the biggest pessimistic would say around 2050 will we reach LEV (Longievity Escape Velocity) Literally the guy with a record in guessing the future with a 86% correct gue sses said around 2030, the truth is that your statement reeks of arrogance we know nothing of what will happen in the next decade.
We will most likely hit the singularity soon which will blow all expectations.
You people will always try to use your logic in things where human logic doesn't totally apply anymore, humans are scared of biological immortality, cause we have a perverse relationship to death literally Stockholm syndrome to the concept of death.
a4mula t1_j3lcqgu wrote
Don't talk to me about Kurzweil. And you can go back 7 years to see that it was my ass that drug Cynthia Kenyon into this fucking sub for people to fawn over.
What's she doing lately btw? Oh yeah, that's right. Top Secret Google Stuff.
I didn't just land here. But even then we understood that there are two camps.
Dreamers that talk about aging. And researchers that understand aging isn't the disease.
GayHitIer t1_j3ld7a4 wrote
Aging isn't a disease??? Aging is literally your body dying of multiple diseases while itself eating itself from various cancers.
It's the literal definition of disease in my book, but sure in 20-30 years, if you don't want to stay young and healthy and rather want every imaginable disease and cancer you do you.
a4mula t1_j3ldk92 wrote
I won't be around in 20-30 years. It's not a concern of mine.
But you keep playing whack-a-mole with all these words you're getting confused about, because who knows. Maybe like every other Pharma Bro out there, you'll throw something against the wall that sticks. Until it doesn't.
GayHitIer t1_j3le80y wrote
Again you reek of arrogance, if anyone is throwing around words they don't understand you would be a fine example.
And I didn't ask you if you would be around in 30 years, even so the Kurz might be a techno Optimist, but he hasn't been off his guess work. What happens in the next decade will be revolutionary we might eliminate biological aging as we know and live healthy and young indefinitely, but ohhhh we don't have it right now means we will never.
Enjoy being ignorant and arrogant, if you really don't care it's your choice I will enjoy being young as long as I can and be open to the future.
a4mula t1_j3lenrm wrote
The problem with youth? It's wasted on the young.
I am arrogant. Do you know why? Because I'm not a fucking idiot, in world of them.
You wanna separate the chaff from the wheat and find out which side of that you fall on?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lf02w wrote
The youth is wasted on the young because there is currently no other choice, curing biological aging would allow the old and wise to have the youth they require to create and invent with the decades of knowledge they have in their new found youth.
GayHitIer t1_j3lf2mv wrote
You seriously have some deep seeded problems, Wasted on the young??? What does that even mean everyone should have access to things fairly, and the only smart people is people who can accept their own stupidity calling others idiots again just make you sound like a clown.
And the whole chafe from the wheat analogy, damn bro that is deep. Everyone deserves access to this nobody should be excluded it will save billions, even the rich will have no reason to keep this to themselves, which is how science should be distributed.
a4mula t1_j3lfacq wrote
No, it means that people waste the best and most productive years of their lives lacking the wisdom to use them appropriately.
I was no different btw.
GayHitIer t1_j3lfgml wrote
If we cure as you call age related diseases people would have more lifetime to collect wisdom and become smarter, also we would have more people take responsibility for the climate and the world as of now.
Most people don't care, cause they die before reaping what they sow, with life expansion people would for once actually take accountability for their actions and we might evolve as a species.
I myself will live if possible at least a 1000 years before I would die by own means if possible.
a4mula t1_j3lfzcp wrote
Then do that. But stop assuming you can cure aging. That's a natural biological process we must all go through otherwise we'll never develop past a sperm and egg.
Aging isn't a disease.
Spreadwarnotlove t1_j3n33y9 wrote
So your entire argument boils down to semantics. Okay.
a4mula t1_j3sbf6w wrote
I've never claimed otherwise. But it's important because this is the framework that will set the perspective.
Again, learn from the mistakes of people much smarter than you or I.
Right now, today, this very moment. Some asshole is throwing his life away searching for a way to cure plaques in the brain because of it.
Spreadwarnotlove t1_j3sdpvl wrote
You have zero legs to stand on. Your argument is pointless. And you have zero idea what you are talking about.
a4mula t1_j3sgaht wrote
I have two legs. I can see them at least. Move them around. They come in quite handy.
I'm not making an argument. I am pointing out facts.
Aging is not a disease. It's a natural biological process.
You do not cure aging, it's not a disease.
You can attempt to find the mechanisms that cause our bodies to become less functional over time. You can call those diseases if you'd like. Though that's still a misnomer.
You can then attempt to treat those mechanisms in a way that they no longer produce the unwanted effects.
Every single thing I've stated is factual.
If you'd like to argue them. Feel free. Until that time, how about you take a giant pill of, wake the fuck up and learn what the words you use mean.
banuk_sickness_eater t1_j3ndypi wrote
>The problem with youth? It's wasted on the young.
Sophistic as it comes. Lmfao thanks for the laughs.
a4mula t1_j3sb54o wrote
>“I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.” - George Bernard Shaw
Recommended reading btw.
Mokebe890 t1_j3lckd9 wrote
Yeah youre totally confusing chronological with biological. Chronological age have nothing important with body if your body is healing all the time and is in perfect shape of 20 y.o
a4mula t1_j3ldlbq wrote
No, I'm not confusing them. But here. Help me out. Why don't you give me a nice definition of each of those, just so I'm clear. Go ahead. I don't mind.
Mokebe890 t1_j3lhgwe wrote
What is so hard to understand? Biological age is wear and tear of organism and chronological is just passing time we measure. You can be chronologicaly 1000 years old but biologicaly at age of 25, just becasue your organism posess such capabilities to heal itself. What passing time have to do with pluripotent cells? Or shortening telomeres you mentioned earlier?
a4mula t1_j3lhs9a wrote
You're talking about my failure to understand. I'll make you a deal. Swear to god, and I'm a man of my word, even if I am a supreme asshole.
Show me a single living creature that has died of aging.
Do that, one example of the countless living things in the history of this planet that just died of age.
And if you can do that. I'll let you pick a really nice way for me to understand. Pick any dry ass PhD level book you want on this topic, and I'll read every single fucking page of it until I'm ready to dig my eyes out, and then I'll read it again.
That seems fair to me.
Mokebe890 t1_j3ljr6b wrote
None died of old age.
Old age is status of wear of biological systems in bodies. But it is because of biological organisms being programmed to produce offsprings and then die, just because their bodies are not made to live for X time. It is not passing chronological time, but internal damage that occurs over time.
My point is that aging is a word for disease that occurs over time. Maybe state organism is could be better, but anyway it is point in which organism starts to degredate. So it is condition that is really unwanted for consciouss being and should be treated like any other disease we are treating today.
But if you want me to show you organism that died of old age then none did, as I said.
a4mula t1_j3lk82h wrote
>organisms being programmed to produce offsprings and then die
That's not true. There are many living creatures, including mammals that suffer no age-related death at all.
>My point is that aging is a word for disease that occurs over time
And my point is that you're talking about symptoms, instead of diseases and it's not even a good definition of the word to begin with.
Mokebe890 t1_j3lmm5t wrote
Sure, because its either biological immortality or reproducing, yet more choose to reproduce than to be immortal.
Symptoms that occur because biological capabilities of organisms are close to end not because 75 years passed. Youre not developing age related disease because x time passed but because something altered your biology into a point when organism cant sustain its wellbeing. Add to this degeneration overtime from the first part about producing offsprings and thats more fitting definition.
a4mula t1_j3ln1s6 wrote
We can talk about symptoms all day long. It's all we've been talking about, because it's all we can talk about.
It's got nothing to do with being close to the end. Naked Mole Rats age, they never get close to the end.
So why are they special? Are they immune to this age shit?
Nope. They still age.
Mokebe890 t1_j3lngak wrote
I know that research yet their DNA says otherwise, that they do age. And it is important to note that their mortality dont increase with age unlike most mammals.
I dont really know if this discusson is mostly semantics. By no mean I say we can stop aging, its against physic laws. But I say that we can cure aging in humans, even if that means we need to check in our doctor every year or five for treatment. But if you think I say we can defy laws of physic and stop passage of time in humans then absolutly not.
a4mula t1_j3lnt6i wrote
It is semantics.
But they're really fucking important ones.
Aging is not a disease. It's a natural process.
And to beat this horse a little more, it does matter. Because when you start saying things like age is a disease.
You fail to understand that you're not even talking about age for one.
After all, 80 year old healthy person, disease free.
15 year old going through puberty, disease free.
Both are experiencing aging. We all are after all. Not all of us have disease.
The only world in which it makes sense to say Aging is a Disease.
Is one in which you're confused about words. And that means you're confused about the concepts behind those words. And that you'll be confused when searching for really fucking important things. Like how to actually cure a disease.
banuk_sickness_eater t1_j3ndkmr wrote
>What causes aging? Time.
Lol I actually laughed out loud. Dude you're obviously out of your depth.
AndromedaAnimated t1_j3orl96 wrote
Do you know that pointing out others‘ „flaws in logic“ because their ideas don’t fit your emotional reasoning is kinda impolite?
Also it’s a fallacious approach that has not much to do with logic.
Repeating over and over that ageing is not a disease because it’s time-related doesn’t explain why ageing is „time-related“ in the first place. What is even „time-related“?
Imagine you travel from Earth to Alpha Centauri through space, in a spaceship that moves faster than light speed (just imagine and assume, we are in the realm of pure logic or at the best math here, not physics that we already comprehend).
This causes time to pass differently for you and for someone NOT aboard your spaceship due time dilation. For example your partner, who has stayed on Earth.
Now is your ageing related to YOUR timeline or to that of your partner who is not aboard your spaceship?…
Let’s see how you solve this logical problem. 😁
And now add your emotions back in. Do you still want ageing not to be seen as disease and its treatment not funded if you travel to Alpha Centauri and back while your sweetheart stays on Earth?…
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments