Slashdot Mirror
Eat Less - Live Longer
Bates writes "In the New York Times (free reg required) there is an article telling about a gene in fruitflies that when disabled doubles the lifespan of the fruitfly. The gene has been affectionately nicknamed "I'm Not Dead Yet." The gene actually manipulates your metabolism by makeing it so the LESS of your food is converted into calories. The article speculates about the possibility of a pill for humans that will partialy disable the same gene in humans. Maybe someone will beat Methuselah sometime in the future."
Would be to ensure that the body converts none of its food intake to calories. That way, you'd live even longer.
And don't give me any crap about starving to death. If I learned one thing from The Matrix it's that the human body gives off more energy than it takes in.
--Shoeboy
I don't know... I'm kind of leary about that. I know that they will (hopefully) test this a good bit before unleashing it on us. Anything that turns on or off certain genes can have extremely dangerous side effects. Plus, adding to the age without fixing other problems (senility, arthritis, etc.) associated with old age will cause the new old age to become a living hell for people.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
If it was as simple as turning a single gene on
:) )
or off, I'm sure evolution would already have done
it for us...
Presumably there's some penalty (other than living many years past senility
Whilst this is a great advance for both people with weight problems and in general for extending lifespans it doesn't really solve the underlying social problems that make us as Americans quite so unhealthy. After all, all this pill does is simulate something we can do quite well on our own with a bit of willpower - eat less.
Why do most Americans feel that unless they eat enough to feed a dozen starving African refugees they've somehow been cheated of what is their right? There's no real need for a steak the size of a toilet seat, and yet restaurants make this their proud boast. Quite frankly its disgusting that people are this selfish and greedy, but then again, it's the American Dream to consume as much as possible.
Maybe if we as a nation were less greedy we wouldn't need this pill. Simply having the willpower to live a healthy lifestyle would do wonders for the average lifespan in the US.
The whole 'calorie' thing is over marketed by the drug companies. It really will not matter that much for your survival if you start consuming twice as little food as you do now. For six years I've being on almost strict vegan diet and mostly I eat only once a day (raw vegetables, fruits, nuts) and it did not kill me in six years, I work out often even though my 'energy' intake is much less than of anybody else in the gym. I just don't buy the 'calorie' crap.
You can't handle the truth.
In a breakthrough announced today, scientists believe they may have solved one of natures most enduring problems - how to lose weight.
It appears that by actually putting less food into your mouth, and instead taking a little excercise, you can reduce surplus weight to absolutely any level you require.
"We were astonished" said the scientists. "We always thought the answer had to be in the genes somewhere. But apparantly you dont need expensive, patented drugs to solve this problem. Just a little common sense, and the ability to understand that solving some problems takes a little time and effort."
You know, I may drop dead of a stroke in my 60s from all the high cholesterol, high sugar, high fat foods, but when I go, I'll go fast like my dad did, and not a slow and gradual progression towards death that horribly ravages everyone's emotions over a period of months to years, as the "healthy" person slowly becomes crippled up, bedridden, loses bowel control, gets cancer, gets alzhimers, or just ends up a vegetable because her healthy body outlived her brain.
There is such a thing as honour in death too. And the studies need to consider this.
<g>
It's long been known that a diet rich in nutrients but poor in calories extendeds the life of living organisms. "Calorie restriction (CR) has extended the 39-month maximum life span of mice to an impressive 56 months, which would correspond proportionally to a 158 year-old human. " - http://www.pbs.org/stealingtime/living/calories.ht m.
Just taking a pill will never be enough to extend lifespan in lifeforms more complex than a fruitfly. If you're really interested in life extension, check out http://www.walford.com/, with sample meal plans in the "Anti-Aging program", or this report on superhealth.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Famous French philosopher Fontenelle was about to die before he was 50...
His doctor told him that unless he would follow a damn'-strict diet he wouldn't be 50.
Fontenelle accepoted this diet and died almost 50 years later.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Geneticists, especially Drosophila ones, have a long history of giving genes interesting names.
Several years ago, the Annals of Improbable Research had a story writing contest where the objective was to write a short story using only the names of genes, for instance, like the one below:
Every single one of the capitalized words happens to be a real name of a Drosophila gene.
This study is great and all for something with a lifespan of 40 days.. but what about the long term effects of low calorie intake in a human over the course of say, 75 years. Little nourishment does little for our immune system.. I would rather live a healthy life than a long sickly one. Besides, at 80 years old with another 80 to go.. our immune system is going to need all the gusto it can get from proper nutrition.
-gerbik
Yeah I know this was intended as a Joke, but there are SOOOOOO many fat people that get offended by people like Calista saying that it is seting bad precident and showing unhealthy lifestyles. There are studies every other month showing that the Barbie dolls are unhealty rolemodels for American teens as they try to look just like that.
Being thin is not unhealthy. Being a fat fucking American is (heh...I've gone pretty much vegitarian and I still weigh 220...I've actually gained weight since the transition...damn carbohydrates). We just don't seem to get it and our cities and work and all that don't make exercising any easier.
Hell, I just biked 3 miles in the snow to work today as my car broke down and now I'm actually thinking that wasn't as bad an idea as I thought it was on the way in. Who needs genetically altered parts when we already have the ability to get off our asses and be in shape and live a whole hell of a long time more than we would with out exercising anyways.
blah
clif
So let me get this straight....
A tic-tac a day keeps the doctor away?
-gerbik
Next time you walk through a shopping mall food court, make a note of the smells the fast-food joints pump into the air. The corporations have tested what lures people into their restaurants and what sells more products. They don't make too many mistakes, or they go out of business. Then some other company takes that spot, selling even more unhealthy food.
I concur that garden variety overweightness has increased as our population has become more sedentary. But pathological (i.e. dangerous) eating disorders are also on the rise. Is that because American consumers are more greedy than those in other countries, or because our society has more disposable income, more food available, more aggressive marketing of food, and more stress (which is a documented trigger for overeating in some individuals)? I don't think that 'greed' explains why people overeat when they themselves acknowledge on a rational basis that they are harming themselves by doing so.
Althogh this is great news for the fruitfly, it dosen't neccesarly translate into a fountain of youth for humans. With the fruitflys, something about a shorter lifespan was geneticly selected as a GOOD THING, and the gene was passed on successfully through the generations. This gene acts as a sort of "timer" that limits the fruitfly lifecycle. In humans, our 23 chromesomes still play a role in longitivity,but not in the same way. Putting aside the role that our genes play in predisposing us or protecting us from certain diseases, it's the replication of our DNA and the errors that occur during the DNA/RNA transcription procces of creating protiens and enzymes that cause us to age. As we build new cells over the years these transcription errors add up and multiply, our bodys begin to break down or function less efficiently. Controlling this proccess is one of the key's to longer human life.
Of course, environment is prbably more important than genetic predisposition anyway, so get up and go for a walk!
I get upset when I read a comment by some person without a weight problem that "all you have to do is eat less" to lose weight. While this is certainly _true_ in an absolute sense, there are extreme genetic differences in people, and for some people these differences make it much, much more difficult to do. Appetite is regulated in the brain, and brain chemistry is quite different from person to person. Just as some people are predisposed to other addictions, many of us are brain-chemistry-dictated food addicts. Likewise, there are wide variations in metabolism. I think you might be surprised if you monitored the food intake of fat people - while you'd certainly find a fair share of overeaters, you'd also find a great many with low metabolic rates who consume no more - and even less - than 'normal' people. Storing up the excess calories as fat is an adaptation that was a great advantage in the Ice Age, but it's a real life-threatener in these affleuent times. BTW, you'd have to do more than double your lifespan to exceed Methuselah - he lived to be over 800 years old!
Serving your airship needs since 1995.
And I suppose you eat the amount of food as starving African refugees eat, and then give the other 11/12 of your food to other starving Africans?
No, you're right I do eat better than these people true, but at the same time I also give to charity every month. I recognise that there are people out there who have no resources and next to no opportunity, and it is, I feel, my duty to at least do something for them.
Sure there's no real need, but why not? People would rather eat good food and not be hungry all the time. I don't see any problem here. As long as people recognize that it will probably shorten their life in the long run ...
Why not? Because most of the world's hunger problems are caused by things like this - inefficient use of resources and vast overconsumption by the First World, especially America. For a nation with 5% of the world's population, the fact that we produce 25% of its waste should say something about our living habits.
As a whole, America is a dirty place.
It's human nature to be selfish and greedy. The only difference is that Americans can afford it.
Unless you're a sociobiology fanatic who believes that their genes control every action they make (allowing them to do anything they want), then you have to believe that people can rise above human nature. Just because we may be inclined to be selfish (a debatable proposition anyway) it doesn't mean we have to.
Quite frankly, your attitude is exceedingly defeatist and gives us a clue as to why people in America today put up with so much crap.
It's called capitalism.
No, it's called laissez-faire which is only a variety of capitalism. There are plenty of more sane economic models in which sustainable growth can occur rather than boom and bust models where long-term means five years.
It's easier to swallow a pill than to have willpower. :-)
Sadly true.
Before this announcement, the greatest news from longevity research seems to have been related to telomeres. 'Telomerase' is the substance of repeated DNA sequences at the ends of genes. It has been compared to "those plastic sleeves on the end tips of your shoestrings," and serves a similar function to keep the ends from fraying and unravelling.
While many do not realize the danger of consuming "low octane fuels," I wonder who can tell us if it may also make sense to move to "higher octane" sources? In a car, higher octane burns cooler per the work output, causing less deterioration of the engine, if it's tuned for it. Since the virtues of complex carbohydrates vs simple sugars are well-studied, can anyone tell us if we can benefit from 'higher octane' (cooler burning) foods exists, and how they might benefit us?
"Eating right doesn't really make you live longer... It only FEELS like it's longer!"
Hyper-nutrition has been accelerating sexual maturity. More and more girls develop at age 9-10. Before 20th century not uncomon to not be able to make child until around 16 years old.
Primates live 30-50 years, so it takes a long time to test this. Even a few humans are trying self-experimentation.
P.S. Is Tarzan's "Cheetah" still alive? Last time I heard in early 90s he was in late 50s in southern CA. Fur had turned white. Chimps lifespan is about 50.
You know, I'm sick of your ungrateful Europeans never, ever, ever thanking us Yanks for keeping your climate nice.
Every day, the sun heats up water in American territorial waters, to the tune of millions of BTUs. Courtesy of the Gulfstream, this water circulates over to Europe and releases it's millions of BTU's of heat, giving Europe, with a latitude of North Dakota, a mild climate.
Millions of BTU's of our American heat goes to Europe to keep you people warm, and do you ever thank us?
I'm writing a letter to President Dubya, and as soon as he find s out about this, he's gonna shut the Gulfstream down.
You may have a point, but you're pointing the greed finger at the wrong Americans. The American corporations which market food may have more to do with it than the American consumers.
Yes, our national "food" industry does indeed have a large role in promoting unhealthy eating habits, but the trend of overconsumption has been in place for a lot longer than the rise of the fast food culture. Whereas most nations have moved away from the gratuitous consumption of vast meals America has indeed moved even futher towards gluttony.
The difference is that Americans have more disposable income and the corporations compete ruthlessly for that income.
Sure, but that doesn't make that much of a difference. It doesn't take a vast amount of disposable income to eat enough to become obese, and fast food corporations like Macdonalds compete worldwide for the attention of customers. So why is it that America is the nation with such a huge problem and such a large amount of consumption?
As I stated elsewhere, Americans believe it is part of their birthright to consume and consume without regard to consequences. It's this attitude that needs to change.
The important news in this article is the finding of the gene that will cause the metabolism to do this automatically! In the words of a doctor whose name I cannot remember, ~"when good food is in front of you, it is damn hard to not eat it if you are hungry." Halving caloric input, unless through some tricking of the metabolism via keytone production ala the Atkins diet (nightmare) will make you hungry. Obviously 98% of the population in the world, not just the US, lacks the willpower to not eat when they are A) hungry and B) yummy food is in front of them. It just appears Americans have worse willpower because we tend to have more yummy food in front of us than almost anyone else in the world (when i first moved to the States from Scotland I noticed portions at restaurants are about 2.5x as large).
In all likelihood a parallel gene will be found in humans, and while tweaking it will have weird side effects, it will be done in the lidetime of the average /. reader. If means are found to reverse or slow the gravity aging effects then the world will become really interesting. Right now, though, this would just result in more frail, stooped, old people running around :)
Frums
I do feel terribly sorry for the plight of those in this world who do live in poverty conditions, the area of Manderville Jamaica's average employment rate is somewhere near 48%. But hey, if I start giving away what little *I* make, then what am I supposed to pay the rent with? Goodwill? nope.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Re: "If it was as simple as turning a single gene on or off, I'm sure evolution would already have done it for us..."
There are a few subtle problems with that statement, which is why I keep hearing things like you said ^-^
(1) With the overabundance of food we've had in the past 100 years in the western world, reducing the ability to utilize food is good at this time. But with a history of thousands of years of famines, it hasn't been that way for very long.
(2) Evolution is about increasing the number of decendants. If you get pair bonded in your late teens, start having kids before age 20, anything past age 40 is not necessary for increasing your genetic propogation. You're actually consuming food which could be used by your decendants to more efficiently pass on your genes.
(3) Evolution is not about optimizing a perfect solution, only a "good enough" solution. Animals that perfectly adapt to an environment become extenct when that environment changes. Less specialized solutions tend to win over the long term.
For more evolution information please check out the most excellant http://www.talkorigins.org/ site.
Appetite/metabolism is genetic, no question.
Perhaps mainly, but environmental factors do contribute.
Being Gay is genetic, so the argument transfers.
That's debateable still. Although it does appear that there may be some genetic factors, it's certainly not conclusive, and there is far more evidence to support environmental factors being the cause at present.
To me, fast food is the ultimate convenience. I don't have time in my two-job day to prepare four-star vegetarian cuisine for myself, so I'll settle for a Big Xtra from Mickey-D's cuz it's got lettuce. Granted, I could walk the extra block for the salad bar at the deli (which I also do occasionally) but hey, that Burger tastes damn good.
And that's it in a nutshell, convenience over responsibility. Why make the effort to do the right thing when the easy option is so much more, well, easy?
I do feel terribly sorry for the plight of those in this world who do live in poverty conditions, the area of Manderville Jamaica's average employment rate is somewhere near 48%. But hey, if I start giving away what little *I* make, then what am I supposed to pay the rent with? Goodwill? nope.
*sigh* You can contribute as much or as little as you feel you can afford you know. Why not set up a standing order to pay a few dollars each month when you get paid? It costs you next to nothing and yet to someone with nothing, it can make all the difference.
Being thin anorexically is very unhealthy...period.
Being fat because you don't do anything and gorge on empty foods or harmful foods is unhealthy.
Being fat because you don't do anything and gorge on healthy foods is somewhat harmful but we don't know for sure
Being fat because you have a low metabolism, but you eat right and excercise moderately is sometimes healthier than a thin person who does the same thing for fat dynamic reasons.. i.e. retaining vitamins and calcium.
Being thin and eating right with moderate exercise is ok too.
Being thin and eating a ton because you have a high metabolism might be ok depending on what you eat.
What you eat does not depend on fat intake, cholesterol intake, quantity of meat or other, but simply the inclusion of a balanced diet and the 96 essential vitamins and minerals with a low intake of trans-fats.
Strenuous excercise is very bad too... if one eats only salad and jogs every day they are going to die young. They aren't getting certain proteins and they're wearing out their joints, their heart muscles, and many other things especially if they have no body fat to burn....and they're getting ugly and stringy too. (I won't continue in this vein because I could fill many paragraphs that way)
According to the article:
The result, reported today in the journal Science, shows that flies with a mutation in a gene the scientists called INDY, for I'm Not Dead Yet, had average life spans of 71 days rather than the normal 37 days.
Wouldn't it be ironic if they produced the gene therapy or wonder drug to turn off this gene in humans, and all it did was increase our life span by 44 days?
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Can you provide any serious research that proves that homosexuallity is genetic? Thats a pretty interesting claim...
If it was, wouldn't the trait have died out long ago? I mean its naturally deselecting...
The genes for homosexuality are thought to be passed maternally (if you are homosexual, then your most likely candidate for a gay relation would be your uncle on your mother's side), and are advantageous for genes on the y-chromosome.
If you want a reference, try 'Genome', a popular science book by (I think) Simon Harris where it's covered quite well. I think the latest research suggests that homosexuality is about 60% inherited.
---
This article deals with a special kind of "weight loss" that is brought about by calorie deprivation. Many different studies have found that when the human body (and also the rat and now the fruit fly) is routinely denied the amount of calories it is supposed to need, for whatever reason it lives much longer. We are talking say 75% of needed calories, *every day*. I guarantee that anyone who does this *will lose weight*. If my body burns at 3500 calories a day at my current metabolism, and I only eat 2600 a day, it is not able to adjust the metabolism down enough to deal with the difference (normally the metabolism can change as much as 15% or so). My body will then look to process muscle and fat for its energy needs. On an active person (also depending on other nutrition), fat is the first to go.
The new idea that the calorie deprivation theory introduces is that after all the fat and all the excess muscle is consumed (no I am not saying it is healthy to lose this muscle), we don't just die. If we have proper nutrition otherwise (which means enough protein, vitamins, minerals, and fats) our body seems to adapt further to allow for the low caloric intake. How the body does this is still murky in scientific fields, but it has been shown true in countless cases. One side effect of this also seems to be increased longevity. In lab rats lifespan has been incresed by more than 150%; obviously, YMMV ;-).
Also, yes, the brain does regulate the appetite, and many people can't control their appetites. It is simply a matter of discipline. I know this, I have done it. You can tell your body to starve itself, and after it gets used to it you don't even have to try hard. Realize, too, that I am not saying this is necessarily a healthy thing to do. You must consult with a nutritionist to develop a diet that is healthy for you, and I do admit that I had a nutritionist's advice for wrestling. My priorities were also different; I was simply looking for a way to lose massive amounts of weight quickly without getting sick or adversely affecting performance. Most people are looking to enrich their lives.
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Mortality is an evil bitch goddess. When I was four years something happened that would forever change me, and profoundly impact my life. I realized that I was going to die. Not believeing particularly in an afterlife, this was a monumentally horrifying thing for my young mind to grasp. Even now, thinking of it fills me with a sense of vast melancholy.
I have been unable to discover any proof whatsoever as to the existance of an afterlife, indeed, all available data seems to strongly indicate that the spark of self and sentience that I treasure within me is a mecahnical product of gene competition, and that when I die, all that I have thought and felt, all that I am, all the rich textures of experience and being encoded in the neuralogical circuitry of my brain will dissapate and rot, fading into entropy and erasure.
Anyway, enough with the mawkish sentiments! I haven't slept in too long. Sure, that's it. Just need to get the day going right, read the morning paper and be about my meary way. heh
Seriously, though. I have been looking into life extension via caloric reduction for a good while now. From what I understand, it has shown to be remarkably effective in creatures as minor as flanaria [mircoscopic flatworms], all the way up to mice, shrews, small mammels. IF started in the human equivilent of the mid-twenties, the projections are that a human being may have a life expectancy of around 120, maybe more [maybe far less, experimental results are hard with people, we're going to have to wait a long while, obviousl].
And it's by no means certain that you would spend that time senile. Animals actually seem quite noticably and verifiably to age more slowly. Thus, you would have the physical form of a 40 year old when you were around 55, etc. In experiments with rheuses monkeys that have been going on for a several years now, the calorie-restricted one's actually had the hormonal balances of much younger ones, and no grey hairs like the control group has begun to develop.
Anyway, take it all with a grain of salt. [Oh wait, that's too much salt, sorry, half a grain!]
The major secret to the technique is to ensure that you recieve wholly adequate nutrition, r.e. vitamins, protein, proper trace minerals, but a lot less calories they your body thinks it needs. This seems to cause the body to slow down.
There is a good source of more information here
Be carefull, this can be dangerous if not done rihgt. I've thought of doing it myself, but I just like food so much! Heh. Actually, my greatest concern is in possibly neurological consequences, I don't want to risk subtly damaging or slowing down my brain in any way. Perhaps this new years resolution will be to flirt with trying it?
---
man sig
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
I'll get to the rest in a sec, but this comment is just too ignorant to leave...
You have it so much better than African refugees, and yet you complain that some people have it even better than you do perhaps? Maybe you cannot afford toilet steaks? I suspect that is so. Even if it's not, maybe you're a vegitarian or, god forbid, a vegan.
In case it had escaped your attention but anyone in the Western world with a job can pretty much afford to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat if they so desire. I certainly can, although I don't, because it's just piggish.
Anyway, back to the rest of your post...
It's one thing if I take a single bite, then throw the rest to the dog, even though that is acceptable, after all, I'm sure a lot of American dogs eat better than these starving Afric refugees you speak of.
So you're proud that you live in a country where it's acceptable for dogs to eat better than some people do? Oh wait, yup, that's America.
But, is it really wrong for me to desire a toilet bowl filled with cooked meat and potatoes? I don't think it is. That's like saying to the A frican refugees that they can no longer have something that they happen to have because there are some even less fortunate people over on the corner.
No it's not, your example is once again overconsumption, using more than you can eat. It'd be the same however if your starving African refugee got an entire toilet-seat steak to themselves and then threw away what they couldn't eat rather than share it with their fellow men.
So whqt else can we do but consume?
Consume less.
I'd be skeptical of any man that doesn't want to eat a steak the size of a toilet seat.
Being greedy isn't actually a sign of manhood you know. You don't have to be a whale to prove your masculinity.
But, sir, my real question is why you have such a problem with the American Dream being to 'consume as much as possible'.
Because American culture interprets this as "waste as much as possible" as well. It is possible to consume without such huge levels of waste.
I mean, nothing precludes those African Refugees from coming over here and starting a business, you know, nothing fancy, maybe an astrology shop.
Right. And current American immigration policies are obviously geared to this aren't they?
Living for your own hapiness isn't good enough, you have to piss and moan about how other people are unhappy too.
I'm happy, and it'd be nice if everyone was happy as well. But you seem to have a real problem with empathising with those less well off than yourself - why?
Just think of how much longer you're going to have to spend at work, because you know the retirement age is going to go up if this happens.
Bummer
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
What would happen then? Would this finally be the Malthusian "Menace from Earth"? Or will humanity be threatened by "Methuselah's Children"?
Dodging dead wombats and rotting cabbage...
Trurl
This isn't the first research in this direction. Here is an AP article about a study with monkeys, and there is also an interview here with 2 scientists who did similar studies on rats at U-dub Madison. I could've sworn one of those two followed a "restricted calorie" diet himself, but that could be someone else... ah, hell, I can't find that. Anyway, lots of preliminary evidence out there.
Scientific American ran an article in one of their special edition magazines this last June called The Famine of Youth. It's a very informative article with several sub-parts covering the type of diet necessary, as well as the type of lifestyle you can expect to live. Unfortunately the web page doesn't seem to contain everything the magazine article did. The full story of Greg Smith that was in the magazine was eye opening and a little frightening.
After reading this article, it seems to me that the diet involved is quite a bit more severe than is being assumed here. It's not nearly enough just to give up snacking. According to the article It's four or five small meals a day, predominantly vegetables and fruits, and a life in which you are perpetually cold, painfully thin and constantly hungry. Calorie restriction, quite simply, is a Draconian diet and a lifelong one at that. Once you start living this diet, you can lose the ability to produce your own body heat.
The required diet is so small that it would come close to being torture. As an American I can fully appreciate the need to reduce unnecessary calorie intake. I ate enough to feed three people all through my teenage years. I eat fairly small meals now, but I don't know anyone who even approaches this kind of a diet. This is closer to a carefully controlled anorexia with special attention given to nutrient density.
I can appreciate this science for its goal, but it's still in the stage where the cure is worse than the disease. I would definitely take 70 comfortable years of life over 100 years of life on this program. Interesting, yes, and I'd expect that this concept will be the foundation to several new and innovative ideas in health, but it's not ready yet. American or no, I don't see too many people being willing to subject themselves to this kind of a life just to tweak out a few more years.
Seth
Oh man, I'd like to see what you're basing that on. I know plenty of people who flat out insist that they CHOOSE to be homosexual, and could go either way.
If this is based on that one study supposedly showing that gay men have smaller hypothalamus glands or whatever, go back to the drawing board. First of all, the research (to my knowledge) has never been reproduced, causality was not demonstrated, and there was certainly no genetic connection clearly demonstrated. The only good way to go about this would be to measure the size of men's hypo-T glands throughout life and see if guys with the smaller ones go on to be gay. Except I think he had to tear their brains apart to make his "discovery." Plus, how does that explain female homosexuality at all?
In addition, it's a ridiculous argument at this stage in the game. I think it was an effort to align homosexuality with previously successful civil rights campaigns, all of which centered around liberating a group that was repressed based on traits with which they were born (african americans, women). If homosexuality is one of those, we can't really persecute it, can we? But I think America has finally started the more difficult process of realizing that one lifestyle system isn't right for everyone, and we just have to accept other peoples' non-socially-destructive actions, whether they disgust us or not.
At the risk of sounding like a troll and a nihilist, humans are living too long as it is. Overpopulation is already a major problem, and it's getting worse all the time. How are we going to have anough food, lodgings, and general environmental resources to support all of these 200 year old scientific wonders. We're always finding some kind of artifical way to go against the natural order of things. If you want to live a long time, all you have to do is eat well, exercise, and stay away from L.A. Our lifespan is already too long with modern medicine today, and the reproductive patterns of humans aren't unlike those of a cancer or bacteria. Let's all just die when we're supposed to and forget all of this nonsense.
A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle.
Okay, lots of people seem to be latching on to this phrase. I think it's important to realize that it's being used simply for comparison, and not to imply that sending half of each huge-ass American steak to Africa would really solve anything.
There are many, many reasons that people starve in all areas of the world. Americans eating a lot is generally not one of them. Having been to East Africa, I can tell you that there's PLENTY of food there. Portions in restaurants are generally huge, and it's often considered rude if you're invited over for dinner and don't have 2 or 3 large helpings of the host's painstakingly prepared meal.
The problem is almost always one of local distribution, particularly in times of draught (which are more frequent and generally more serious than here in America). Even in the best of times, the people who live closest to production (eg, corn farmers) are just barely subsisting because commodity prices are so low that they frequently lose money on a harvest. So, even though they're almost swimming in food, they can't always provide proper nutrition to themselves and their families.
When there actually is a food shortage, things are even worse. Scarcity of resources drives the prices up, theoretically, but the market is often controlled by corrupt officials and sometimes tons of produce gets sold on the international market for slightly higher prices, without helping the local sitation at all. Result: people starve, farmers still get screwed.
And, sending food from here often doesn't help. Frequently it gluts the market, screwing the farmers again, and often even rots in transit, so ends up being useless when it gets there. There are all kinds of examples of mismanaged world bank programs that have miserable effects on indigenous cultures everywhere even when they're trying to do good in this way.
So, go ahead and have your porterhouse. It doesn't cause anyone else to starve. But please also give to charities to help the hungry in America, and try to buy FairTrade commodities (like coffee) to help the agriculturists world-over.
See the LFA web site for details on the high quality work the stiff is providing.
And our culture is bad precisely why?
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
The problems Africans have feeding themselves has more to do with local politics than anything else.
Country after country in Africa is beset with internal political struggles, half or more of them degrading into armed conflict. Until they figure out their own political problems, they're going to starve (Somalia) and worse (Rwanda and others).
It's quick and easy to point the blame at the west for "creating" these problems through colonialism, but many of these countries have tribal hatreds that predate any colonialism and many have actually gotten much worse since they lost their colonial masters.
Unfortunately starvation in Africa is really just a symptom of Africa's inability to forge a political reality that works.
I remember seeing a scientist who found that earthworms lived about 50% longer when he cut their caloric intake by 1/3.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
What is actually evolutionary encouraged is not your own reproduction, but your descendents reproduction. A child that has no further children is not evolutionarily encouraged.
Historically, individual economic and social power is associated with living longer. It's still true. Compare peasants and kings. Compare europe, south america, and africa.
Since such power tended to derive from muscles and work, women, who are biologically disadvantaged in those areas, have historically lacked power. It is only recently with modern sanitation, medicine, and social equality that the higher 'natural' life expectancy for women has finally become apparent.
The number one thing that would improve average life expectancy on Earth is PROSPERITY! Affluent societies can afford sanitation, child labor laws, much less back-breaking labor, modern machinery, technology, modern medical care, electricity, anesthetics, literacy. All of these lead, directly and indirectly to a healthier populace and longer life expectancy.
Anyone who claims that prosperity and technology are wrong are cursing our world to poverty, cursing our world to starving short-lived miserable people. The world has enough of that already. This is a fate that no moral person could wish on anyone. (Unfortunately, there are millions of people that espouse this horrible vision, this is why I dislike the more radical environmental movements, of which Al Gore is a sympathiser. I further note that only people in affluent societies seem to be against progress. Those that do live in poverty seem to feel different.)
Prosperity has it's flaws, but the benefits far outweigh them.
In other words, while it's anecdotal, it sure seems that it's welfare that causes reproduction rates to go up, and the under-educated tend not to do a very good job ensuring a good education for their children, hence a real negative drain on overall societal productivity gains since society ends up taking care of them as well...
In other words, I really think we've peeked evolution wise, it's all downhill from here unless we muck with it artificially (and you know we will). Today, the ones reproducing and carrying on their traits tend to be the *cough* stupid idiots.... :-(
That's why the offspring of old guys has a better chance of survival and reproduction than young guys.
Old guys are financially better established (in industrialized nations), and therefore, better able to provide for their offspring, send them to private schools, live in rich, exclusive, safe suburbs, send them to college, and get them elected to the presidency of the united states. (which, as President Bill Clinton proved, is like the BEST way to get laid by a whole bunch of young women).
(the daughters become debutantes, and progress to the trophy-wife stage, below. Poor chicks either cannot afford the plastic surgery to become a trophy wife, or can afford BAD plastic surgery, which negatively impacts survival rate).
These young guys though, learn - that getting laid while young is not productive, because you get saddled with wife and kids too early, and either end up divorced or spending your evenings and saturdays at home with the wife and kids instead of working (or playing golf, which, in a career-enhancing sense, is actually working). So they work, and stay childless, until their wives are too old to have kids, they divorce them (pre-nup!) and marry an 18 year old trophy wife, and knock them up. And the cycle repeats.
The thing I can't understand, is that with all of these pressures, why hasn't some rich guy funded a research into a decent male birth-control method so that young male children of rich old fathers and 18 yr old trophy wife mothers can have sex and not risk pregnancy - this makes no sense at all, because getting laid constantly is one of the perks of the rich, but getting some bimbo knocked up is a huge risk, which can suck away a guy's financial future, and therefore severely compromise the survivabilty of his offspring (meaning - guys with healthy libidos are actually less likey to produce financially robust offspring!). Perhaps child-support laws have not been effective enough for long enough of a time to have had an impact on this.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
family tree and identical twin studies have both pointed to the notion that homosexuality is inherited.
Now, I could see a "choice factor" in the family tree argument if "in the closet" gay fathers are indoctrinating sons. But in the indentical twins cases (adopted, to separate families)- *not*.
I am a person who believes in human free-will, but I also believe that there are numerous things that we have no choice in, and many of those things, we may believe that we made a choice - but, in fact, either the choice was made by biological or sociological law, or there was a strong influence or predisposition. And again, in some cases, force of will can overcome the biological predisposition (for instance, disabled athletes). That means that if there is a "gay" trait, sure, not everyone with that trait will adopt a gay lifestyle. They may marry opposite sex, and enjoy fulfilling lives, and may not ever understand or express their same-sex attraction. Many fans of Pro Wrestling are probably in this camp.
The same is probably true for people who are genetically predisposed with strong appetites. (like myself). These urges can be supressed (with drugs, hypnotherapy, or violence), but the urges are there, and they are stronger in those people than in other people. To suggest a lack of willpower, suggests a lack of intelligence and understanding from the person who made such a suggestion. And even smacks of racism or eugenics! (I'll see your ad hominem attack, and raise you Godwin's law!)
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
There's a guy who shows up on TV once in a while who claims that restricting your overall coloric intake by nearly half you can extend your life by some large factor -> 20-30% or more. He brings out a mouse which is about twice as old as any other mouse and which has been fed roughly half of what a normal lifespanned mouse eats.
Well now ... I can see that movement is going to gain momentum again. Why bother converting food into calories when you can live off of light and only eat "occasionally" when you "want to experience the taste".
Living on Light - formerly Pranic Nourishment
And keep in mind that fruitflies live for what, 24 hours? And fruitflies are much smaller than us, and I doubt they have time to get fat in that 24 hour life, or is it 48?
Applying fruitfly research directly to humans is like the salad craze of the 70's after it was determined that rabbits live longer with more veggies and less meat -- well, rabbits are herbavores normally anyways, and unless you redigest (...) like rabbits do, you're unlikely to have the same results in that case. Same for fruitflies.
It starts when junkie parents first feed food to their children. In the beginning, the food is free, but as an adult I gotta pay big bucks to continue my food habit!
cpeterso
I once read of a theory which stated that the rise of such technology was not to better our lives, but to keep the same standard of living.
Aboriginal people with low population densities only have to work a few hours a day to get all their diet needs. Its only when their population increases that they have to resort to farming and a greater expenditure of their time to support their same standard of living. Farming did not lead to more free time, it lead to less, and it also lead to a greater population increase, since the greater percentage of carbohydrates shortened the average time between pregnancies. As the population further increased, people turned more and more to farming, and hunting pretty much disappeared after all the big game had been killed off.
The theory also stated that the reason behind the gender inequity was a push for less females, and thus, limiting the population growth. By encouraging warfare, villages put a higher value on boys instead of girls, and the warfare between villages had the nice side effect of making "no-man's land" where game animals could grow and breed.
After you breed, evolution just considers you a walking refugee from the protein pool.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Yeah, I remember hearing about that study. Aboriginies may have 'short' workweeks, but they don't get many of the labor-intensive things like medical care, automobiles, postal system, computers, television, cable, telephones.
I know I could survive a lot cheaper with less work if I didn't have a computer or a car. (I don't have a car now, getting one would double my monthly expenditures.)
How short could you make your workweek if you gave up all those toys? I could live on about 10 hours a week at my current pay rate.
The part about low caloric intake is quite old. I remember, back when the Extropians were hot, at TV show chronicled a bunch of their antics. One of the more interesting bits was a couple that was planning on extending thier life-spans by eating less.
They had a very regimented set of diet and excersise that involved having to eat some really out-of-the-way foods to get the right mix of nutrients in such a small diet. It seemed like the kind of life-style that would make me long for a cheeseburger and fries, even if it meant I had to die 10 years younger.
If the gene-manipulation route works out, does anyone know if we'll still have the same problem, or will your body be polite and take less nutrients from what you eat, but from all the right nutritional cross-sections? Sounds unlikely.
Thanks for the info.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
don't you think it would be a little hard for gays to pass on their genes down their family tree?
There are lots of genes that do this. They just have to be recessive on the X chromosome, carried by an (unafflicted?) female.
..don't panic
Aboriginal people with low population densities only have to work a few hours a day to get all their diet needs.
While this is true, it doesn't really tell the whole story. The most commonly cited study I've seen is the one done on the !Kung a couple of years ago. While it's true that they worked less hours per week, they also faced much more uncertainty, which is why many of them eagerly switched to manual labor (mostly as cattle herders for neighboring Bantu tribes), which involved a lot more work, but a lot less hours. This may be what happened in the past as urban, agrarian societies began to form when people abandoned hunting for herding and farming.
--
...by darthpenguin. In another scientific breakthrough, researchers have discovered that darthpenguin is capable of doing thousands of calories of work while only taking in 600-800 calories.
"We believe he's some form of biological perpetual motion machine. We have already filed a patent." said lead scientist Dr. Benjamin Schwartz.
According to Dr. B.S., darthpenguin can eat less food than what all normal adults require for minimal subsistence living, and still be able to perform strenuous physical activity, all without losing weight.
"This is truly remarkable. We intend to harnass him to a giant hampster wheel and use him to solve the world's energy problems. He only produces a minute amount of methane and carbon dioxide a day." another scientist was heard to say.
Actually yes, I do know a real environmentalist, myself. I am an environmentalist. I do not want to live in filth, I'm glad I live in an affluent society that has similar views. I said nothing about the incompatability of industrial practice and environmentalism. Only the radicals who wish to halt or reverse progress.
There's a difference between what I think and what the radical environmentalists do. Firebombing. Hysteria over GM crops when golden rice can save millions of children from vitamin A deficiency. Hell, even Greenpeace has backed down on their lunacy about DDT; they actually agree it should still be used to stop Malaria. (25 million lives saved a year!) Food irradiation? How many outbreaks of salmonella and E.Coli, how many deaths could have been prevented? How many millions of people sicken or die each year from food-bourne illnesses? [references available upon request]
I detest such views. I detest only those who espouse such views. They are morally wrong. No moral person could want tens of thousands of children to go blind, millions to suffer vitamin deficiency. No moral person could ban a chemical that has saved 25 million lives a year.
I am glad of the environmental movement of the 50's-80's. If you were a member back then, I thank you! But, I find much less to respect about the radical parts of the modern environmental movement.