>

which only goes to show that if we had a creator, it would be a sadistic demon.
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >

“…we aren’t supposed to be living that long natrually”.
So now I’m old AND artificial? >

You are what you eat, now stop talking, plastic. >

'Your honor, if you are what you eat, than I am an innocent man.' >

r/holup >

r/deadsubreddits >

How do you  reply to a subreddit with 3 million followers with a dead subreddit implying the 1st was a dead subreddit and not see the irony in this situation. >

r/IronicSubreditComments >

wow there really is a sub for everything >

This is every species..... you think an old ass moose is carefree, happily skipping along until the wolves pull it down? >

Humans have a particularly long old age, though. Most animals go from elderly to dead fairly quickly. >

Most animals have natural predators that like to take advantage of the weaknesses brought on by old age. >

So did humanity until civilization mitigated most of it. >

…which is the point of civilization? >

I thought big anime tiddies was the point >

Even back when hygiene and healthcare weren't up to snuff, living up to 70 was fairly common. What drove the stat down was child mortality. There were SO MANY kids died before even reaching puberty. But if you can reach adulthood, odds were good you can live a long life. >

I don’t think you understand, I said suffering not dying. I’m talking about the health issues so many elderly people have; arthritis, cancer, respiratory diseases, Alzheimers etc etc >

and they had those in 1500 too, because people living to 70 wasn't unusual >

Not OP and I do agree with you, but OPs post doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with now vs the past in terms of people living a long time. >

If think it does. I might be wrong but this post seems to imply that with the technological advances we extended our natural life span and that's why we suffer physically more when older.
However, as stated, people have been living to older ages even before the technological advances. >

1500s is after quite a lot of advances >

But of course not the ones I'm talking about. Recent technological advances are incomparably higher that those that happened up until 1500. >

I mean are they? In what scale? How do you decide that? You gonna tell that to a caveman? >

In the sense that the access to health services and quality of life luxurious is way easier than it was before. Damn my parents had it way harder than me and my grandparents even harder. >

So? Everything you said also counts for that era when you compare it to a caveman. >

is that true? i thought in the olden days people happily lived until 60 or 70 >

The first Neanderthal skeleton found was a man in his old age. Which is why we have the "hunched over" caveman image, the first one literally was because he was old af. >

It’s an exception. Average is average, neanderthals lived very little. Same as first humans.
You are not only using wrong statistic here, you are coming up with things in the fly. 
25% of Neanderthals survived past 40.
Hunched is because people in the 1800s thought that Neanderthals were a link between an ape and a human and supposed to walk like a chimp. You literally made up the old hunched thing. >

Thing is that the average was brought down so much because of infant deaths which were incredibly common >

It’s an exception. Average is average, neanderthals lived very little. Same as first humans. >

Euhm no, kids died which brought the average down. Thats simple mathematics man >

No. There is average lifespan statistics and archeological evidence of findings which is a different statistic. 
Or you gonna invent high percentage of old neanderthals that does not exist? Evidence of old neanderthals is sparse.
25% of neanderthals survived past 40. Twice as less than now. >

Actually the natural lifespan of a person hasn't really changed over the last few thousand years. It's just that we are not dying to diseases and accidents as often as before.
Aging is still happening at the same rate, it's not getting better. It could though... >

I mean, that's not quite true.  We have census data from ancient Egypt, for example, that shows that living to your 60s and 70s was actually pretty common, but you didn't really have anywhere near the amount of people living to 80 or 90 or 100 that we have today.
Life expectancy has gone up /mostly/ because of reductions in child mortality and childbirth mortality, sure, but it's also gone up some because people live longer. >

Yes, life expectancy has gone up, because people live longer. But the reason people live longer is that we can cure (and manage) a lot more medical conditions that the Egyptians could.
The thing we call "aging" is a completely different phenomenon that happens to everyone regardless of their health. It's basically your cells "forgetting" what to do in your body and this inevitably casues some medical problems sooner or later.
We haven't made any impactful scientific progress in stopping aging since the egyptians, although there have been promising results recently. >

'supposed to' is awkward phrasing. It all comes down to which genes are passed on. In other words, we suffer as old people, because suffering when you're old does not impact your procreation.Note: I'm not a biologist, read Dawkins - the Selfish Gene for some easy to understand insights. >

The amount of people that don’t understand this is exasperating >

i dont understand this, and i am exasperated >

Unless I am misunderstanding what you’re not understanding.
What they’re saying is that the reason we suffer from all sorts of problems as we age is because anything that kills you after you reproduce ceases to matter as far as evolution is concerned, as long as it doesn’t also kill your kids before they reproduce.
For example.  Say you carry genes that cause you to drop dead at age 10.  You die young, don’t have kids, those genes don’t get passed on.
Now say you have those same genes, except you drop dead at 25.  You might have kids, you might not.  The gene can get passed on through successive generations, but is going to be kind of rare.
Once again, except now you keel over at 70.  A very good chance you’ve had kids, multiple kids.  Those kids have kids and you’ve helped raise them.  Those genes are definitely getting passed on.
Replace “genes” with things like cancer, dementia, organ failure, teeth falling out or just about any sort of disorder that can cripple or kill you. >

oh i was jk. but ye you make good points >

Yeap, since about 5 years old life’s been a struggle… shoulda been put down then >

I really think a bigger issue is that the older we get the less likely we are to keep in shape.
Say you stop doing most physical activity in your 50's. This is very common, at least in North America. Now compound not working out over the course of 20-30 years, you're now 70-80. This along with old injuries greatly effects your general health.
This doesn't even take into account a poor diet over those years.
My Grandfather is in his late 70's, he eats well and works out 2 hours a day. He is in great shape and luckily has no health concerns. His biggest regret is not starting this healthy lifestyle until his mid 60's.
Obviously genetics play a role in this as well, but that can be difficult to control yourself depending on your medical history. >

I don’t subscribe to the logic “we aren’t supposed to XYZ because for hundreds of thousands of years humanity did ABC”. We do tons of things differently from our ancestors and they have proven to be good (or benign):

Frequent bathing/showers
Brushing one’s teeth
Drinking disinfected (not raw) water
Flying on a plane
Playing video games
Etc, etc >

"Aren't supposed to" is a quirky phrase.                     
It makes it sound like the universe has an opinion on how human life should go.
We "aren't supposed to" survive many diseases and disorders, but over millenia we've advanced to the point where we can cure and treat many afflictions.                
There was a point in time where we thought "Pain is an essential part of life. To feel pain is to live."                  
The agony of being cut or having a tooth pulled was just the price of surgery.                   
The idea of anesthesia ridiculous, and it's invention overturned world views.
The suffering of getting old is just the accusation of damage outpacing our healing.  As we improve medicine, the image you have of "suffering old" will shift to an older and older age.
There really is no argument against advancing medicine to halt or reverse aging.            
Bizarre and scary, sure.           
But so would modern cultures and concepts be if you explained them to an ancient person. >


There really is no argument against advancing medicine to halt or reverse aging.

Overpopulation and not giving the youth their place in the society ? >

Overpopulation isnt a thing. 
The Earth has plenty of space, it's the cities that are crowded. 
Also the trend of population growth seems to be the more crowded is it and less opportunities there are, the less kids people have.
As for for your second point, what do you mean?
What is "the youth's place in society"? >


The Earth has plenty of space, it's the cities that are crowded.

I was not referring to space but consumption of resources and environmental impact. Which is proportional to the population and its technological advancement.
So yes, overpopulation is a thing, as it is what we are doing now.

Also the trend of population growth seems to be the more crowded is it and less opportunities there are, the less kids people have.

So, as opportunities are in the cities, but the people in the cities have less kids, that sounds like actually a balancing thing. Maybe cool ?

As for for your second point, what do you mean?
What is "the youth's place in society"?

As more and more people get to 100, 200 years old or maybe more, the values and input of youngsters (20 to 40) will be less and less taken into account, whereas it is when you are the most creative and disruptive (in all social classes and to an extreme for entrepreneurs). This is already something that we see today.
In essence, if a society gets old, it tends to be more conservative. Not necessarily in the mean of politics right/left wing, but more in the sense of "let's not rock the boat, don't disrupt things, don't change stuff". Do you want a society that does not evolve ? >

I mean the first part just sounds like youth today in many developed nations. Whether it be not having enough personal time or housing or economic freedom, resources you could say,  the youth are having kids later and later if at all.
So if your definition of "overpopulation" is "not enough resources to go around", it looks like humans tend to sub-consciously regulate themselves.
The third part can be resolved if we dont stop at just superficially cure aging.
I know what you mean with that trend, and that trend lines up nicely with the fact that as we get older we lose our neuroplasticity. Our neurons become less receptive to change and that' how you get "old people set in their ways."
Our efforts to prolong our bodies also include our brains.
And what adult WOULDNT want to regain that sponge-like brain they had as a kid? 
As for your middle bit.. do YOU lament "the voice of the youth" thousands of years ago when life expectancy was shorter?
If we go back a thousand years ago and generally outline our societal and economic structure, we would seem as unnatural and crazy as the current topic seems to you.
A person from long ago couldnt FATHOM our working, let alone how to get from their society to ours.
I guess what I'm saying is: Yeah, I dont know how we'd resolve that, but we're ever evolving and we'll adapt incrementally to whatever crazy shit we come up with.
Cause that's what we've always done. >

Not really. It's mostly of poor lifestyle choices (junk food, alcohol, tobacco, drugs etc.) People in Japan and some other places live up to 100 years and quite healthy till the end. My grandpa lived up to 80 and I have never seen him go to the doctor or take any kind of medicine, he had a very disciplined lifestyle.
The body is a machine and putting junk in will result in terrible outcomes. >

This is a very anti-human thought. There are many of us who suffer from a young age.
Suffering makes facing death easier. 
It's still not a great reasoning path to go down because many feelings of suffering can be solved and should be to make the world a better place rather than to end life sooner. >

Human bodies just do what they do without some value judgment attached to it. The value judgment you chose to attach devalues elderly people. >

There's evidence we live past menopause because having grandparents is an evolutionary benefit for social structures. You take care of your parents in their old age and they provide childcare and wisdom to pass down to your children. Please don't get it in your head that its okay to let our aging population die because that's the real reason old people suffer and die in poverty. >

I came here to mention the menopause thing. I don't remember where, but I read somewhere that either humans or primates are kinda of alone in surviving very long past the ability to reproduce. >

We are supposed to live as long as our body can and the environment allow us. >

Suppose our body could and environment would allow for eternal life? >

We 100% are.
Who do you think used to care for the children while the men were off hunting and the women were doing all of their work? Grandmas and grandpas. Nearly all human cultures revere the elderly because of their value to society >

While I think you're right, your point is technically not sound. If everybody starts having kids in their teens, then you're a grandparent in your early thirties, so 40-year-olds COULD have been "old people" in those hunter-gatherer days you're referring to. >

Yes but people would keep having kids- many of whom wouldn’t make it to maturity- until they stopped being fertile much later on. So who’s watching your 3 year old when you’re still hale and hearty at, say, 40? Your parents who are in there late 50’s or maybe even 60’s.
Remember, infant mortality was insanely high back then. That’s why the average age remained so low for so long- people lived to their 60’s all the time back in the day, but half your siblings died before they turned 10. >

Lol, true... didn't think about the part where people would just keep having kids until they can't.
The only way for "die at forty wtih all your kids grown-up" to work would have been for women to enter menopause at like 20-25, which likely wasn't the case :P >

Lol, “we aren’t supposed to” is a really problematic statement. How long are we supposed to live “naturally”? Are we “supposed to” die early by preventable diseases? Is our ability to defeat dieseas “unnatural”? We are not aliens, we and out behaviours are as natural as lions hunting and ants building nests. But say you reject it anyways - should we stop “unnatural” behavior? It would imply the deaths of billions. Many of these billions that are alive thanks to our ability to fix nitrogen from air and make food out of it.
And let’s not start to talk about the definition of “suffering” - the elder have always been a valuable and integral part of our communities. Today many (old) people suffer because of loneliness.
Point is, things have to be defined and making assumptions (as in “supposed”) is problematic.
Nonetheless, increasing our health-span rather than our lifespan is a highly interesting endeavor of medical science.
P.s.: I noticed that when I’m tired I’m easily irritated by a lack of logical foundations. But this is a showerthought and some liberties can be taken. So all in all, I’m being a bit of an ass, but the “supposed to” (idk why) really bothers me from a philosophical (and biological) standpoint. >

So you imagine that ancient humans who lived 30-40 years suffered no aches or pains? >

Or culturally… we prioritize physical beauty and denial over experience and acceptance. >

Actually that’s correct. People who actually survived childhood rarely lived past 55 in the 1700’s. Maybe a few wise old grandparents had something to give back! But after that, you are a burden on society. So if you’re 80 and suffer from a debilitating illness but somehow survive until you’re 100 it takes a lot of resources to keep you alive. Too bad if you WANT to travel to the golden gates so your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren can benefit from your legacy. They instead have to waste it all on expensive nursing homes that, for no fault of the homes, squeeze the last drop of dignity you have. 
In saying that, I met a lady the other day who is 92, goes to the gym, drinks Riesling with her younger friends (in their 80’s) AND volunteers her company at a nursing home. >

you suffer as you get older because your body is naturally starting to accumulate wear and tear. and as you get older your body starts to mess up processes that it needs to survive like rebuilding your skeleton every 10 years. it’s just simple stuff that accumulates over time until you die. we are naturally supposed to live into our 60s-80s it’s only unnatural when your living in a hospital >

That's not accurate. Saying something is supposed to be a certain way is like saying there is a single objective truth. Eradication of infectious diseases extended our lifespans significantly. Then we starting seeing lifestyle diseases become the leading causes of death. We don't need to suffer in old age. Plant based diet, exercise, sleep, abiding substances and maintaining social connections can make for extremely vibrant and fulfilling years at the end of life. >

I disagree. I’ve seen plenty of old people not suffering. The ones that suffer, are the ones that didn’t take care of themselves. The ones that thrive have kept active physically and mentally. U don’t use it, u lose it. >

reads industrial society and its future once (I mean kt as a compliment) >

This is close to interesting and close to right. It’s more about evolutionary pressure beyond our breeding years. >

We suffer in old age because aging is a debilitating terminal illness. Luckily there are lots of people working on a cure :) >

hum... how about entropy ? >

If you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics, that only applies to isolated systems. Humans are not isolated systems.
Also, it only states that entropy cannot decrease, it doesn’t say that it must increase. A steady state is possible, even in an isolated system. >

Living isn’t the problem. It’s the slow break down of the body. Nothing a few modifications won’t fix. We’ll be living longer then ever before to long. >

What? Yes we are? We have many records of people living well into their 100s for decades and our current average is about 75. Where did you get this idea? >

With this kind of logic women shouldn’t have kids because before modern medicine they were dying giving birth ? Sounds good to me. >

Factually not true. The body breaks down over time. Part of that is pain (in a variety of ways), loss of vision, hearing, balance….etc. Whether you have an abnormal long life or a relatively shorter one. >

All hail the mighty dentists, more than doubling our life expectancy single handedly >

How old is that long? There are records of healthy elders in Asian countries during the bubonic plague of Europe. 乁⁠༼⁠☯⁠‿⁠☯⁠✿⁠༽⁠ㄏ >

People used to live 60 and 70s with no problem when the problem was reach to adulthood as a kid you got sick a lot. 
I used to get sick every year as a kid >

Big statement to say old people suffer more on average than younger or middle aged >

Literally we are supposed to live that long naturally or else we wouldn't physically be able to. >

This is why I personally believe you will benefit society by  having a child after you've survived a deadly illness. Give your seeds more data to train on 😎 >

I've been suffering since birth. I definitely hope I die younger I don't wanna be old it's worse. >

"Supposed to" is a loaded turn of phrase. We're not necessarily "supposed to" do anything in particular as we're sentient and are aware of our own biological imperatives. 
Also, life is suffering at any point in time, not just for the elderly. >

I'm about ready to die in a random duel and go to Valhalla at 33. >

Never saw the appeal of losing your mobility, memory, ability to have basic motor functions, just for the fact of 'living' a long life. >

I don't believe that's true.  Check out some of the old black and white interviews of people from the 1920's.  They're all in their 80' and 90' and quite spry and lucid. More self reliance    I think our processed foods are competing with our medical advancements. >

I read somewhere that human body is designed to live 200 years. Just we have so many things deteriating it >

Not sure about this, other animals suffer when they are old as well. >

Results not typical. My dad is only slightly older than you, ate right and worked out for the last 30 years, and now has debilitating arthritis and other fun health problems. >

And I know a guy in his early 30s crippled by arthritis. Disability can happen at any age, just the longer you live, the worse your chances. >

It falls apart with age but it's mainly because you don't treat your body with exercise,good eating habits, and reduced stress. It adapts to stimuli. You stop working out and become lazy, that's when it starts failing. When you push it, it is forced to make changes.
I've met people in their 70's that had less problems than some 30yo people. I have friends in their 30's that are obese. They don't work out, they don't eat healthy and are developing health problems. 
If you make it your goal to run 20k, your body won't handle it the first time. But if you train every day, your cardiovascular system will change in order to be able to do such a task. If you keep this mindset for your whole life, your body will always be in top condition. >

Great advice, and we all need to remember there's a window of Grace and forgiveness your body will give you regarding for lifestyle choices.. after which you may experience permanent health issues, so take advantage of the adventure of pushing yourself while you can