HIP HOP LIFESTYLE

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Medicinal Practices

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Medicinal Practices

    I'm curious to see how people would honestly feel about this hypothetical question. If in the future, technology advances to the point where humans could never die, or at least live well beyond what is considered a natural life, would you be disturbed by the idea? I'm not really concerned with this actually happening I just want to know if there's any limit people would put on medicines ability to cheat death.

  • #2
    Hypothetically, yes. If this was offered 100 years ago (and I was alive then) I would take it. However, I think our future looks disturbing. Everything will be GPS implanted. I'm doubting there will be any natural terrain in developed countries or metro areas. I like computers and all, but I don't want to be alive when they control every aspect of our lives.
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -- Aristotle

    Comment


    • #3
      I would not mind it. If they could find a cure for cancer and prevent heart attacks or strokes (as they are coming closer to doing with smoking bans and trans-fat bans) I think people living to 95-100 would be normal. Now as it is already, many people live into their 90's.

      But if people could somehow live to be like 200? I don't think it is possible but if they spend 120 of those years stuck inside an incubator then its not really worth it.

      Comment


      • #4
        check out this article about genetically modified food. similar to the topic at hand...

        Genetic Modification of Foods

        Five Basic Questions

        The problem with having politicians responsible for handling policy on an issue like genetic modification (GM) of foods is that they clearly haven't a clue what they're talking about and don't even appear to know what questions to ask. This, more than anything we actually hear about genetic experimentation, is what we ought to be most alarmed about.

        Call me a foolish optimist, but I suspect that GM foods are going to turn into one of the most beneficial of technological advances humanity has ever undertaken. Not only will they help wipe out hunger - and to a great extent the causes of hunger - famine, but as we understand more about the human genome, we will increasingly engineer out those elements in food which actually cause us more harm than good. (for instance we may one day be able to produce livestock with much lower levels of digestible animal fat.) The net result will be another couple of decades on our life expectancy.

        However...

        ...that is all way in the future and you can be pretty damn certain that before we reach that halcyon state, we will make a number of the usual gaffes and scientific or commercial misjudgements that accompany any major innovation. Our task at this stage, therefore MUST be to ensure that those inevitable and excusable errors do not have the opportunity to become the cause of inexcusable disasters.

        The key risk, which I'm sure professional science correspondents could explain better than I, is the introduction of new proteins into the food chain. Proteins which we have not evolved a mechanism for either assimilating or rejecting have the capacity to affect us in two major ways. The most serious is to cause genetic mutation in humans by modifying the so called 'germ line'. (i.e causing a defect which we could pass on to our children)

        Whilst it is hypothetically possible that such mutations would be neutral or even beneficial, there is at least an equal chance that they could be disastrous; and until we know vastly more about the genetic code, it is most certainly not a risk worth taking. Having said that, effects on the germ line are extremely unlikely and not difficult to rule out with suitable experimentation.

        The more likely consequence of this man-made invasion is the probably trivial but potentially catastrophic response from our immune system. We will one day know enough about the human genome to be able literally to calculate the reaction of our dna when it encounters a foreign dna. This is not the case to date. Hence there is only one way to be sure that we trap all potential effects of such an encounter - and that is to monitor the long term effects on life expectancy.

        In other words, we can not and will not be sure that any new proteins we introduce into the food chain now, are completely safe until we have seen their effects on human consumers for about 50 years. Anyone who says otherwise is guilty of scientific fraud or plain ignorance.

        This should not mean that we don't allow people to consume GM foods until that degree of certainty is achieved. Indeed, if we take that approach, then, by definition, we can never reach that level of certainty!

        What it should mean is that, after all reasonable efforts at establishing minimal short and medium term risks (through experiments on animals etc), the products can be licensed for general release under one absolutely critical condition. Viz THEY MUST BE LABELLED!!

        If they are labelled (and this, of course, includes labelling any prepared foods which include the new products as ingredients), then the long term trials can be conducted fairly and openly whilst routine commerce is played out. There will, perfectly reasonably, be those citizens who do not wish to expose themselves to this unquantifiable risk and will use the labelling to ensure they do not consume the product. It is not merely a matter of simple 'human rights' that they should be allowed to do so. Just as importantly, it is crucial to the long term study of any beneficial or harmful effects.

        As time goes on and it becomes increasingly obvious that there is no harmful effect, the abstaining group will diminish.

        However, in a nutshell, if no such abstaining group has ever existed, then, should we all start developing some strange brain disease in 40 years time, we will have no way of isolating the cause. It could be some long delayed BSE effect, or the genetic tomatoes, or some new environmental issue that arises at the time. How will we know? If we want to be able to eliminate GM foods from blame for any future alarming disease patterns, we can only do so if we know that there is a group in society which has never consumed them. If they, too, suffer the new disease then the GM foods are in the clear. If they remain free of the new disease, on the other hand, then we will know pretty well that GM foods do carry risks and be able to make an informed judgement about how to deal with them.

        It is, therefore, in the long term interests of both society at large, and the producers who wish to make long term profits from this industry that full 'audit trails' are maintained so that we always know exactly where the new foods have gone and who has eaten them.

        The problem is that the Monsanto's of this world are more concerned with the short term because their shareholders, perhaps reasonably, want to see a return on this huge investment within their lifetimes. And they don't want labelling in case too many of us choose to abstain and thus reduce their profitability. And politician's have always been too easily swayed by the men with money. What we need is a compromise.

        Essentially society - through elected governments - must, if we want the potential benefits of the innovation, be prepared to carry some of the potential risk - particularly financial. i.e. The taxpayer should either fund basic research in the field or pay the likes of Monsanto to do so on our behalf. If we do the latter, then the research gets done, the shareholders reap their short term rewards (through funding from taxes) and society isn't rushed into accepting a half baked genetic tomato! If the research goes well, Monsanto eventually make huge profits, from which society reclaims its share through corporate taxation.

        With all that in mind, could someone please ask the relevant politicians - or better still their scientific advisors - to provide answers to the following questions.

        1. Is there any possibility of new proteins (viral or other) being created by the genetic modifications being conducted? (The correct answer is 'Yes'. If the answer given is 'No' then we should demand to see what peer reviewed research supports such a conclusion)

        2. If so, is there any possibility of these new proteins being ingested by human beings? (Similarly here, the correct answer is 'Yes'...)

        3. If so, what analysis has taken place of the risks such new proteins might carry with them? (And where are the results of such research published?) In particular has research unequivocally ruled out the possibility of any effect on the germ line?

        4. Has this analysis clearly demonstrated that any risk is below measurable or significant levels? If not, what level of risk has been assessed? Over what period of time has the analysis of effects been measured? What evidence exists that no further effects would become evident over longer periods of time?

        5. If no such analysis has taken place, on what basis can it be stated that no significant risk exists?

        I'm sure we all look forward to hearing the answers...
        http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=gmf

        WWW.LIFEAFTERTHEOILCRASH.NET

        WWW.LIFEAFTERTHEOILCRASH.NET WWW.LIFEAFTERTHEOILCRASH.NET

        Comment


        • #5
          I wouldn't put any limit on research and usage of "death cheating" drugs. Today the norm is 80, tomorrow it'll be 800. No reason for restrictions.

          Comment


          • #6
            This was a debate during the Schiavo incident. All else aside, she was dead. Her brain didn't work and her body could only live on machines. We have reached a point where humans can theoretically be kept alive almost indefinetly on machines. Each organ individually can be kept alive and nourished. Pulling a tube or halting medicine isn't killing these people. It's allowing them to die naturally and with dignity. Often, these machines don't keep people alive anymore than they prevent people from dying naturally. The brain is "use it or lose it", and after ten years on machines... Schiavo would never have been able to recover. Accordingly, she was allowed to die. So while I support keeping people alive on machines while there is a hope, I disagree with indefinitely keeping them alive with circumstances are dire.
            Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TheWalrus View Post
              This was a debate during the Schiavo incident. All else aside, she was dead. Her brain didn't work and her body could only live on machines. We have reached a point where humans can theoretically be kept alive almost indefinetly on machines. Each organ individually can be kept alive and nourished. Pulling a tube or halting medicine isn't killing these people. It's allowing them to die naturally and with dignity. Often, these machines don't keep people alive anymore than they prevent people from dying naturally. The brain is "use it or lose it", and after ten years on machines... Schiavo would never have been able to recover. Accordingly, she was allowed to die. So while I support keeping people alive on machines while there is a hope, I disagree with indefinitely keeping them alive with circumstances are dire.

              Sam Harris on the Oreilly Factor about this incident...

              http://youtube.com/watch?v=8jJpa6H3OIY

              WWW.LIFEAFTERTHEOILCRASH.NET

              WWW.LIFEAFTERTHEOILCRASH.NET WWW.LIFEAFTERTHEOILCRASH.NET

              Comment


              • #8
                id like to live to a 100 in the state of health i will be in my 20's...and then die peacefully
                www.supremacyracing.com


                I Honda

                Comment


                • #9
                  You guys have no idea how close we are to having the medical knowledge to live 800 years. Everybody here will see this happen. Of course with this type of responsibility there will have to be strict rules when it comes to child birth. People will have to be limited to 2 children and it will have to be enforced. If there is 2 children per family the population will stay stable. Human beings will have to understand this if we want to survive and benefit from such wonderful scientific advances. RNA interference methods will soon cure every disease. Many people cannot comprehend this but it is going to happen.

                  The problems with these type of scientific breakthroughs is the powers behind them. Big medicine has to be responsible and not think about greed. They can still make there money selling cures instead of treating people with dangerous medicines.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Looks like I'm the only one here who opposes this type of thing. I'm a dedicated naturalist and I think cheating death it's basically a "sin" if you will. I don't agree with organ transplants, chemo, blood transfusions, ect. Human beings are biologically designed to live around 80 years on average for a healthy person.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      My great grandma lived to 103.. So I'm set to live even longer hopefully.

                      She lived in two different centuries, that's just crazy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by PlasticSturgeon View Post
                        Looks like I'm the only one here who opposes this type of thing. I'm a dedicated naturalist and I think cheating death it's basically a "sin" if you will. I don't agree with organ transplants, chemo, blood transfusions, ect. Human beings are biologically designed to live around 80 years on average for a healthy person.
                        This is where I disagree. If it wasn't for scientific medical advances then we would be still dying at 30 years old. Scientific medical advances are only natural. Medical advances are the reason why billions of people are still alive today. Whenever I argue about this when the person is religious I always make the point that Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years!
                        If you are a dedicated naturalist and you get really sick don't take any medication seeing that it is "not natural".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by FowlMouf View Post
                          This is where I disagree. If it wasn't for scientific medical advances then we would be still dying at 30 years old. Scientific medical advances are only natural. Medical advances are the reason why billions of people are still alive today. Whenever I argue about this when the person is religious I always make the point that Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years!
                          If you are a dedicated naturalist and you get really sick don't take any medication seeing that it is "not natural".
                          I've never taken medicine but I will use homeopathic solutions which I argue work better because when you use medicine the white blood cells attack the medicine whereas herbal solutions pass right through no problem. My diet is entirely organic and "Earth based", no synthetic or processed foods. I never get sick and I have no known health ailments but everyone I know who lives contrary to how I do is frequently sick and has family members with cancers and various other illnesses. If nature frowns upon me and I do get something I'm confident that my choice to forgo any medicine will not be deterred. Death is actually a natural part of an ecosystem and working around it tends to create more problems than it solves. The real reason people live longer is because the condition of living improved not just because medicinal techniques were advanced.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by FowlMouf View Post
                            You guys have no idea how close we are to having the medical knowledge to live 800 years. Everybody here will see this happen.
                            Ok so in your fairytale world of tomorrow, we live to 800?

                            Originally posted by foulmouf
                            Of course with this type of responsibility there will have to be strict rules when it comes to child birth. People will have to be limited to 2 children and it will have to be enforced. If there is 2 children per family the population will stay stable.
                            But, somehow having only two babies each will keep the population stable. How. Does each couple have a baby at age 400? And by the time they turn 800, their kids will be 400 and can have two babies?

                            Where do some people come up with these ideas.

                            Originally posted by foul
                            RNA interference methods will soon cure every disease.
                            Captain optimist, I love it

                            Originally posted by foul
                            Many people cannot comprehend this but it is going to happen.
                            Well, i'm glad you were sent from the heavens to comprehend things us mortals cannot.
                            Warpox exposes himself | Editorial 1 4 | 2Pox

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Walrus just which proved my point because it is not a fantasy. By comprehend I meant take the news without unjustly ridiculing me. If you would actually read up on this stuff and talked to people from biotech companies you would know. Since you don't bother to do any research and reply with ignorant comments, I suggest you read up on RNA-I and articles on genetic engineering. I do admit that I am optimistic nothing wrong with being positive. These medical advances excite me because they are a reality.

                              Comment

                              Post ad widget 300x250

                              Collapse

                              LATEST POSTS

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Smilert, 12-23-2020, 06:03 AM
                              5 responses
                              25 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Nancystarkman  
                              Started by Nancystarkman, Today, 12:21 PM
                              0 responses
                              1 view
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Nancystarkman  
                              Started by jreuirei, Today, 08:56 AM
                              0 responses
                              1 view
                              0 likes
                              Last Post jreuirei  
                              Started by dbmci, 10-07-2020, 05:11 AM
                              2 responses
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post BrookeDavis  
                              Started by Deborahlanker, 07-14-2020, 10:02 PM
                              3 responses
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Torry
                              by Torry
                               
                              Started by biolifeavisfr, Today, 05:34 AM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post biolifeavisfr  
                              Started by biolifeavisfr, Today, 05:33 AM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post biolifeavisfr  
                              Started by tkaxec, 09-18-2020, 11:50 AM
                              2 responses
                              8 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post nicklloyd  
                              Started by Borsyk, 02-25-2021, 02:01 AM
                              2 responses
                              5 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Borsyk
                              by Borsyk
                               
                              Started by untrades, Yesterday, 08:05 AM
                              0 responses
                              3 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post untrades  
                              Working...
                              X