Jump to content

Mrs Zeta

Senior Members
  • Posts

    173
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mrs Zeta

  1.  

    Love this. You cannot explain why the units don't ad up. All you did was regurgitate it and didn't even develop it in the paper. Just appealing to authority. That's all you can seem to do. This is generally what medics do because their image is greater than their academic ability. If you can't understand the maths don't put it in.

     

     

    I've worked in medical academia as well as clinical. It was so amateur (was at Imperial college London) that I took a pay cut, spent my savings on tuition and went back to study physics.

     

     

    This is simply waffle. I appreciate that you may not have been born in a english speaking country but you're saying nothing here. This is vague trash that makes no points. I know this amateur wishy washy language gets accepted in NHS academia and medical academia but on this forum people are interested in science with testable predictions.

     

    As a general point if anyone is thinking I am exaggerating the poor standard of medical academia browse some of them. My friend is a peer reviewer for the emergency medical journal because he knows someone and they put him down. He'll admit it himself. Never been published himself and never undertook post grad study at the time. I've come across professors of medicine who can't get their head round standard deviation and simply calculate the mean all the time stating that it's too complex ..... they are also peer reviewers. The difference with the medical profession and other sciences is that medicine doesn't get a grade in the UK. This means that you can graduate bottom of your year and still get a clinical job, in that clinical job you will be encouraged to write papers and do research. In other sciences you have to get a good grade to get into grad school and only a select few will get phds, you have to be interested and extremely motivated to get into a position of carrying out research in that field. Medical academia is have ago academia because anyone who's passed their undergrad can have ago, that's why there's so much trash.

     

    As for your theory the way you put across the hypothesis is terrible. You offer limited or no knowledge of some of the things you write about (the maths equation). The only replies I hear from you are appeals to authority. You then make a point that I hide behind a name. I do this so I can speak the truth, I can actually write about what goes on in my job without the risk having a hard time at work. If anything your stunted, with your name exposed your ego is on the line, you may have funding on your trash research, if you concede and one of your colleagues stumbles across this site it wouldn't be nice for you.

     

    This is all he can do Acme. He can't even justify why the maths he's writing makes sense. He's appealed to authority to justify the maths he's used. This is how low NHS academia is.

     

    Physica: the fact that you were an unsuccessful medical doctor is not of my concern. Please do not reflect your inner hatred at me, I do not appreciate it. Most importantly, it is not scientifically constructive, and you should not be posting personal disparaging comments in a science forum. If you don't like my 'science' then respond with specific critical points and we will discuss it. Otherwise please direct your anger at something else.

     

    I would only answer one of your comments which shows how muddled you are in your thinking about ageing, and I will try to make it simple. With the passage of time, we sustain damage, and our organism tries to repair this damage. When it fails, and the damage accumulates, there is dysfunction which is evident at a clinical level. People may suffer from diabetes, arthritis etc. This is called age-related disease. Clinical medicine aims to treat these diseases with drugs or other therapies. But these do not affect the cause of the illness which is the inability of the organism to repair the damage. My comment was about this part of the equation (sorry to mention maths). Dealing with the continual onslaught of damage requires a different approach than those based on drugs etc. It is like, cause and effect. In this case, medicine treats the effect. I am talking about treating the cause. Two different things.

     

    Once again, please try to answer in scientific or clinical terms, otherwise don't answer at all. Thank you.

  2. But in any case there is no evidence of a global brain; it is nothing more than a speculative metaphor and a poor one at that.

     

     

    You are now saying that you are better informed about the global brain than a group of 25 university researchers and professors, with dozens of publications between them, and several million euro budget. And the example I mentioned (the Global Brain Institute) is just one such organisation. Come on, where is your vision?

  3. I can’t see how you can decide that I have no vision. One (not I) may argue that the concepts I presented here are brimming with vision, but that is irrelevant.

     

    What matters in the emergent phenomenon of the global brain is the degree and extent of information-sharing, the value of that information (it must be both trivial and non-trivial), its speed of transmission, how many people interact with it, and what happens to that information after it has been assimilated. Writing, speech and printing have played a part in defining our culture, but we can now move one step higher. If you compare the global brain with the human brain, then in your example, writing and printing are equivalent to the parasympathetic nervous system, or to other, slower and more primitive neurological functions. The global brain (digital communication) contains many other components which are more relevant to cognition, intelligence and creativity.

     

    Your lack of vision does not discredit my comparison. Labeling writing and printing as 'static forms' is a less than rigorous dodge that misrepresents the dynamics that letters and literature exhibit. Speed of flow does not change the character of fluidity, i.e. either a 'thing' flows or it does not. If such a thing as a 'global brain' exists, how would it not be affected/influenced by Luther's letters or his Bible? Would you seriously deny that Luther's Bible had any affect on people worldwide?

  4. Back on topic, if what you & those at your link propose as a 'well accepted' global brain, wouldn't there exist an evolutionary analog for writing in general and printing in specific? Can you point to any research or evidence for such an evolutionary effect or artifact in humans?

     

    I can't see the validity of this comparison. Writing and printing are static forms of communication and cannot at all be compared to the fluid, fast, global and immediate communication by digital means.

     

    I've looked at your paper. It's a complete joke. This is why I quit clinical and went back to university to study physics. It reminds me of the A and E department where I worked where 3 consultants and a reg did an audit on unnecessary coag blood screens. They audited 98 patients revealing 51 unnecessary tests. The next audit consisted of 289 patients revealing 58.... they thought the problem was getting bigger and we were being more wasteful. Furthermore they presented it at a conference and nobody picked up on it. Hospitals are full of doctors and nurses who memorised biology to pass exams who think that they somehow understand science because of it. You are definitely no exception. After reading the paper you wrote and cited I wasn't shocked when it said this:

     

    "In addition, photon-photon interactions induce molecular vibrations responsible for bio-amplification of weak signals described by:
    m(c^2)=BvLq
    where m is the mass of the molecule, c is the velocity of the electromagnetic field, B is the magnetic flux density, v is the velocity of the carrier in which the particle exists, L is its dimension, and q is a unit charge."
    You offer no testable predictions. The maths is so amateur it doesn't make sense. This isn't scientific it's just rambling....pub talk. Reading your posts and "paper" reminded me of the days when I worked in a hospital. Hopefully people reading this we start to appreciate how amateur and vocational clinical medicine is. In your conclusion you state that:
    "The reductionist view that aging can be manipulated by simple biomedical repairs is unlikely to lead to any appreciable practical results that can be used in order to diminish the impact of age-related degeneration."
    This is complete trash and over simplistic. Are you telling me that there is no "appreciable practical results" to giving an elderly patient with type 2 diabetes metformin?? Are you seriously going to tell me it won't affect the degeneration of eyesight??
    Although my colleagues complained about it all I can say is: thank god medicine is becoming more protocol driven

     

    The fomula you mention is not mine. It is cited from another peer-reviewed and published paper. And my 'amateurish' paper has been critically reviewed in detail by several academic experts who do this for a living, and it has been deemed suitable for publication.So I am confident that their opinion is more valid than the opinion of an unknown person who is hiding behind intentional anonymity. Nothing personal mind you. To be fair, you read the draft, working paper, and not the final post-review version (in press).

     

    People can be clinical doctors and also have additional life-long training in other science disciplines such as biology. One does not preclude the other. One does not diminish the value of the other.

     

    Regarding your last comment about manipulating ageing, you misunderstood the argument. Of course I am not talking about clinical age-releated degeneration. Clinical disease can be treated with reductionist approaches. Instead, I am talking about the basic, background and global process of time-driven damage. From the interventional point of view there is a distinction between age-related clinical disease (diabetes, arthritis), and the underlying process of senescence itself.

  5. Alright, a few specific points that you may want to address:

     

    1. Evolution operates generationally on a population level. Individuals do not biologically adapt to their environment. They either are adapted to it or they are not, and they live and die by the adaptations they are born with. Humans have the exceedingly important advantage of being able to culturally adapt to new environments within a generation by learning new behaviors. These sorts of adaptations operate on an individual level, but we're born with the capacity to learn, and entering or excelling in a new environment induces no biological changes in an individual whatsoever, regardless of cultural or behavioral changes.

     

    2. Piggybacking off of that, the environment does not induce adaptations that are beneficial to living in the environment. In fact, unless it happens in the germline, and therefore only affects your offspring rather than you, the only changes the environment is going to make to your biology that will have any noticeable impact are broken things, generally resulting in cancer. That's what we call the most common significant result of an environmentally induced alteration to an adult individual's DNA.

     

    3. You haven't proposed a mechanism by which what you're describing could happen. Things don't happen just because. Evolution, for instance, works and a fairly straightforward and almost tautologically simple principle: The more something makes copies of itself, the more of that thing there will be, and the better a thing is at making copies of itself, the more copies of itself it will make. That's all that is required to be true for natural selection to function, because that's really all natural selection is: The better something is at copying itself, the more copies of it there will be.

     

    This means any traits that result in more copies being made will wind up being more strongly represented in the next generation.

     

    Let's say you have a population of people that are constantly being chased by wolves, and the only way to avoid being eaten is to run away. This is a constant thing that happens. Well, the slower someone is, the more likely they are to be eaten, and consequently the less likely they are to have children, because it's hard to get it on in a wolf's stomach. On the flip side, the faster someone is, the more likely they are to escape and, since it is again much easier to have children outside of a wolf's stomach, the more likely they are to have kids. This means, generation after generation, the faster people are having more kids than the slower people.

     

    Eventually, the only people left are going to be the descendants of fast people, because all the slow people will have been eaten. So you'll have a population made up entirely of very fast people, but it won't be the case that being chased by wolves induced a biological change to increase speed. The traits to run quickly were already present, or we're equally prone to appear regardless of whether or not anyone was being chased by wolves, the wolves just killed everyone who didn't have the "speed gene."

     

    4. Off the evolution point now, or at least tangential to it, you're proposing that people will live longer because they are more useful to a global brain network. The issues with this are A: can you demonstrate that there exists a global brain in any meaningful way and B: that there are any feedback mechanisms that would cause this network to improve the life expectancy of "useful nodes." Because contrary to your assertion, networks don't just spontaneously retain useful nodes. In networks that do, there is some mechanism that defines what is and isn't a useful node and a further mechanism for retaining those nodes. These things don't just happen.

     

    Thank you for taking the trouble to go into some detail. I am using my original account to reply, since the guys at SF would not allow me to use the one with my real name (for administrative reasons).

    1. Evolution operates generationally on a population level. Individuals do not biologically adapt to their environment. They either are adapted to it or they are not, and they live and die by the adaptations they are born with. Humans have the exceedingly important advantage of being able to culturally adapt to new environments within a generation by learning new behaviors.

    We both agree here, I am talking about the ability of *humans* to adapt to new environments, particularly now with the help of technology. I am not talking about any other organism.

    These sorts of adaptations operate on an individual level, but we're born with the capacity to learn, and entering or excelling in a new environment induces no biological changes in an individual whatsoever, regardless of cultural or behavioral changes.

    I disagree. A new environment may induce biological changes and some of these may also be heritable. These changes are most likely to be epigenetic modifications.

    Here is a passage (with references) from one of my working papers: (Information-sharing, adaptive epigenetics and human longevity http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6030)

    “…, repeated stress early in life can protect against more sustained stress later in life [48] and social factors can play a role in epigenetic regulation the effects of which not only persist throughout life, but can also be transmitted to the offspring via epigenetic inheritance [49]. In addition, there are specific epigenetic profiles associated with longevity [50] which can be transmitted to the offspring. Gentilini et al. [51] have shown that centenarians have certain specific DNA methylation characteristics (such as those found in nucleodite biosynthesis, and control of signal transmission) which are also found in their offspring, suggesting that these characteristics are heritable.

    48. Natt, D (2011) Heritable epigenetic changes to environmental challenges. Linkoping studies in science and technology, dissertation 1383, Linkoping University, Sweeden

    49. Thayer ZM, Kuzawa CW. (2011) Biological memories of past environments: epigenetic pathways to health disparities. Epigenetics 6(7):798-803

    50. Gentilini D, Castaldi D, Mari D et al. (2012) Age-dependent skewing of X chromosome inactivation appears delayed in centenarians' offspring. Is there a role for allelic imbalance in healthy aging and longevity? Aging Cell 11:277-83

    51. Gentilini D, Mari D, Castaldi D et al. (2013). Role of epigenetics in human aging and longevity: genome-wide DNA methylation profile in centenarians and centenarians' offspring. Age (Dordr) 35:1961-73

    2. Piggybacking off of that, the environment does not induce adaptations that are beneficial to living in the environment. In fact, unless it happens in the germline, and therefore only affects your offspring rather than you, the only changes the environment is going to make to your biology that will have any noticeable impact are broken things, generally resulting in cancer. That's what we call the most common significant result of an environmentally induced alteration to an adult individual's DNA.

    See my answer above which addresses this point

    3. You haven't proposed a mechanism by which what you're describing could happen. Things don't happen just because. Evolution, for instance, works and a fairly straightforward and almost tautologically simple principle: The more something makes copies of itself, the more of that thing there will be, and the better a thing is at making copies of itself, the more copies of itself it will make. That's all that is required to be true for natural selection to function, because that's really all natural selection is: The better something is at copying itself, the more copies of it there will be.

    I take the term ‘Evolution’ to mean adapting to your environment, surviving and improving (yourself or your species). You may talk about evolution by natural selection, but there other types of evolution, for example, intentional or directed evolution. I talk about the latter

    4. Off the evolution point now, or at least tangential to it, you're proposing that people will live longer because they are more useful to a global brain network. The issues with this are A: can you demonstrate that there exists a global brain in any meaningful way

    The issue of the existence of a meaningful global brain is not my own proposition, it is a well-accepted and studied area (https://sites.google.com/site/gbialternative1/)

    and B: that there are any feedback mechanisms that would cause this network to improve the life expectancy of "useful nodes." Because contrary to your assertion, networks don't just spontaneously retain useful nodes.

    I am not claiming that networks spontaneously retain useful nodes. I am claiming that they retain them because there are specific reasons and defined principles at work.

    In networks that do, there is some mechanism that defines what is and isn't a useful node and a further mechanism for retaining those nodes. These things don't just happen.

    I know there is a mechanism for retaining useful nodes. However, I don’t know what it is in the case of humans within the global brain. There is some good research going on but from this point, I am just speculating and this area needs further study. It does not mean however that my hypothesis is necessarily wrong because it is based upon principles which have been proven correct in all other networks studied so far.

    Once again thank you for raising some relevant points.

    Marios Kyriazis

  6. We are attempting to better understand how the futurist scientific and philosophical community perceives the possibility of radical life extension (RLE).


    Radical Life Extension refers to the elimination of age-related degeneration, and a life without ageing. Regardless of your thoughts and feelings on the possibility of RLE we want to understand how these ideas impact behaviour. If you would be willing to take 5-10 minutes of your time to fill out this survey, we would appreciate your time:


    (www.theadvancedapes.com)


  7. Telomeres are involved in ageing but this is not the only issue. Epigenetic changes are becoming increasingly recognised. There are many people who take telomere enhancing supplements in the mistaken belief that they will live longer,

     

     

    I will stick with wrinkles thanks.

     

    Unfortunately, ageing does not only cause wrinkles but also urinary and faecal incontinence, loss of memory, crippling joint pain, etc. The quest to live longer is, in fact, a quest to eliminate age-related degeneration.

     

     

    A poet once wrote

     

    " Live is nothing but agony, I am most surprised of those who want more of it"

     

    Did this poet get out of the way when a car (horse) was racing towards him? If he did, he was a hypocrite.

     

     

    As one passed through one's extended life, via new age-enhancing science, one would find it's ultimately all the same old s**t but with different actors ...3 score and 10 or so years .is fine for me thank you very much! :)

     

    I am guessing, you are not yet a 69 year old.

  8. From the ageing/longevity point of view, I and some people in my group believe that as technology progresses, we will tend to move away from monogamy/procreation and become more polyamorous (non-procreative). See here for some general ideas:

     

    http://cadelllast.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/last-c-2014-radical-life-extension-and-the-end-of-biological-reproduction1.pdf

     

     

    http://hplusmagazine.com/2013/11/26/sexuality-evolution-and-the-abolition-of-aging/.

     

    This refers to the Point number 3 of the OP

  9. It is a matter of how people define the terms. When you are well, you are in a far-from-equilibrium state, your functional complexity and information content are high and entropy is also high. When you are ill, there is a state of reduced functional (but sometimes increased structural) complexity, energy loss continues to be high until it slows down to eventually zero, a point of (physical, but not biological) equilibrium and maximum predictability i.e death.

  10. And, can we see the extraordinary evidence that goes with that extraordinary claim please?

     

    (Probably in another thread since I think it would be off- topic in this one)

     

    I can answer this here, as it refers to the original posting (although my view opposes it).

     

    I wrote a few non-scientific essays discussing this, for example here:

     

    http://ieet.org/index.php/ieet/more/kyriazis20121031

     

    and here:

    https://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/04/the-life-extension-hubris-why-biotechnology-is-unlikely-to-be-the-answer-to-ageing

     

    also a more scientific paper discussing the hypothesis that the treatment will be more related to global communication and evolutionay mechanisms, rather than physical treatments: http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.2734

     

    Finally, we are formalising the whole thing here:http://benthamscience.com/journal-files/special-issue-details/cas/CAS-SII20140109-01.pdf (due for publication in March 2014). I hope this helps.

  11.  

    The positive scientific articles and research on reverse aging and cures for diseases are so plentiful that I wouldn't even know where to start selecting them to support my contention for this topic.

    Biotechnology may well help us cure diseases, but unfortunately it won't help us reverse aging. The cure for aging won't be anything physical and, contrary to what peope say, it won't depend primarily on biotechnology.

  12. Is the internet an extension of our nervous system?

    YES, in the sense that we can gather information from it, elaborate it and re-transmit it

     

    Is addiction to the internet a reflection of an underlying nervous disorder?

    NO, but most addictions are bad

     

    Is it a symptom of social anxiety?

    NO lthough some people prefer the anonymity

     

    And will it really replace real socialization?

    YES, in great part, but not fully

     

    Can a chat bot replace a mentor or benefactor?

    NO, I don't think this will happen in the forseeable future

     

    What does the future presage? (as the internet grows will it become a social anathema like obesity?).

    NO, it will become a necessity

  13. I am not advocating to go and get yourself injected with the active flu virus, but it could be because the infection stimulated your immune system which 'over-reacted' and thus reduced the asthma. It is known that mild doses of poison act through hormesis to boost the immune system. In the times before antibiotics, people used to drink small amounts of dirty water to fortify themselves against typhoid, or inject themselves with cowpox pus in order to avoid smallpox.

  14.  

    Good Day

     

    All welcome to post topics related to ageing.

     

    My interest is in Sirtuins and lets tease apart Sirtuins to see how they are affecting ageing and lifespan.

     

     

    Would you like to post something interesting about sirtuins, perhaps something that has practical relevance to people interested in healthy ageing?

  15. Do I want to live 1000 years? Hell no. And yes, I've seen the effects of the aging process on close family members who have passed away in recent years. They have also fallen to the effects of dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson's, incontinence, etc in their final weeks and months. I will forever know how they looked at me and had no idea who I was despite seeing me grow up from a baby. But knowing that still wouldn't change my decision to live a normal life and die when my time is over from natural causes.

     

    Unfortunately for you (for your argument) there will not be a choice. A life without ageing will mean living for an indefinite time (no a priori limits) which could be 10 years, 18 years or 1000 years. There won't be any 'natural causes' unless you mean natural disasters or natural infections. A cure for ageing will mean the elimination of all age related conditions, but people will still die from any other cause (cholera, malaria, accidents etc). Also, unfortunately for your argument is the fact that, some theorists predict that once the cure for ageing has become reality, a majority of humanity will necessarily have to experience it. It will not be a matter of choosing to have the treatment or not. Something like the equivalent of the treatment of cardiac arrest today. If you have a cardiac arrest 'the system', will without your consent, put you through certain steps wich are likely to revive you.

  16. Nature does things without any intention, although there is a general tendency to higher complexity. We are one with nature (i.e. we are subjected to the same laws as anything else) so it is not surprising that we find symmetry, order and beauty in natural things. The laws of mathematics and physics/biology are emboddied in all natural things and it is up to us to discover and describe them. Fractal geometry exists in living biologial organisms including humans, and it goes far deeper than generally appreciated.

  17. Ending ageing will NOT mean ending death. People will still die from other causes such as infections, accidents, suicide, cancer, etc. We will never be able to live 'forever'. We would however live a life without ageing, which means that we will not get age-related degeneration.

     

    Some theorists believe that the treatment for ageing would have to be used by a substantial section of humanity (hundreds of millions) in order to be effective. So this would be available to anyone.

  18. Many believe that the search for extreme lifespan prolongation is unethical on several grounds, citing overpopulation, depletion of resources etc.

     

    I want to live for centuries. In order to achieve this I need to eliminate ageing as a cause of death, and hope that I won't die from an accident or injury. But if ageing is eliminated, then it would necessarily mean that all age-related degenerative diseases would be eliminated as a consequence. So, those who oppose the search for an indefinite lifespan are de facto opposing the elimination of these degenerative diseases.

     

    Or, looking at this from another angle, many people I ask say that they would like to live healthy for many years and accept that their time is up and die when they are old. What these people fail to realise is that if they are OK to die through ageing, it necessarily means that they would suffer age-related degeneration and are likely to spend their final years incontinent, demented, in chronic pain and disability. So, when someone asks you: "do you want to live to be 1000 years?", think twice before you answer 'no'.

     

     

     

     

  19. OK, common sense and the data say that remaining life span fall as a you get older or, equivalently, the older you are the more likely you are to die in the next year.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Excerpt_from_CDC_2003_Table_1.pdf/page1-593px-Excerpt_from_CDC_2003_Table_1.pdf.jpg

     

    So the idea that, at 100 you have a longer life ahead of you than you had at 90 is experimentally wrong.

    Since the effect described does not actually happen (older people don't expect to live longer than younger ones) there is no need to call on some weird hypothesis to explain it.

    Indeed, if, as stated elsewhere, this increase in lifespan among the elderly is a natural consequence of the "Global brain" and this increase does not happen, it is evidence that this "Global brain" (whatever that might mean) does not exist.

    This 'Global Brain' is not some giant brain floating above the Earth. It is merely another term for the total digital connections between all hyper-connected individuals (the total number of people using the internet and the emerging concequences of this usage). It is impossible not to exist, unless we all stop using digital communication completely.

     

    Also, the increase in lifespan mentioned earlier is not specifically with regards to the elderly. It is for all of those who use and share meaningful information (i.e those who are active 'components' of the Global Brain).

  20. It would break whole economy - imagine billions of people taking annuity for life. Immortality = infinity long taking money from government...

     

    If governments would work at it, they wouldn't tell this to people, and it wouldn't be freely available for everybody.

    Also imagine billions of people living and working indefinitely, and as a consequence, paying taxes indefinitely. Governments will earn a lot of money!

  21. Then you are not speaking of complexity, you are speaking purely of intelligence which is not necessarily correlated with neuronal complexity. If you don't see a comparison between a mouse brain and human brain you may be fairly upset to learn most studies of neurodegenerative disorders are done on mice. If it were not for our digestive systems, and diet in general, we would not have the brain we do have. Also, Black birds show large amounts of intelligence and there brains our fairly simplistic in comparison to most mammalian brains. So what you're arguing for is not complexity, but a specific human trait, to show humans are better? That seems pretty anthropocentric.

     

    Yes it is anthropocentric, and I am proud to be human.That is why I believe that it is a waste for me to die of ageing, whereas if mice or blackbirds die, so what?

    Sorry, but I am deliberately arrogant, in order to prove my point.

  22. Well for one that's a loaded question since you phrased it as a creation.

     

    Ignoring that I would say a mouse's brain is more complex due to it having a higher neuron to unit body mass ratio. I could also say that the digestive system of almost any animal is more complex than the brain in many ways; such as housing an entire ecosystem, the incredible specialization in each area, etc. Depending on what you mean by complex I could give quite a few examples. This is coming from a person that is planning to work in neurobiology as well, so don't think I don't have a love for the brain.

     

    I mean 'complex' as related to intelligence (i.e.the ability to select a correct option out of many choices). I can't see any comparison whatsoever between the brain of a mouse and that of a human. And I truly believe that my brain is cleverer than my stomach (on most occasions). If I had to choose to have any complex organ I like, I would go for the human brain. Without it, nothing exists.

     

    Point taken, however, the intention was not backhanded; meaning I really don’t think we’re special in any way.

     

     

     

     

     

    Given that procreation will continue, can you really not see a problem?

     

    But this is the issue here. Procreation will not continue at the current rate, in a society in which its members live for several centuries. Procreation is only needed because we die, and so the survival of our species needs to be assured.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.