Re: Most people could live past 130 if they choose to, while aging very little
is that information true? where did you get that?
it would be amazing if everyone could live longer
it would be amazing if everyone could live longer
Step back. Remember were you are: Bitcoin Forum > Other > Politics & Society > "Most people could live past 130 if they choose to, while aging very little _ No I won't tell you how..."
Let's cut to the chase. Where can I send my bitcoins to know the answer?
Not so fast. I would love to oblige you, but I rather you learn of my honesty and insight first.
I am the real deal, but I can be anyone and full of crap so stay tuned. There are just too many
human expressions that have been belittled through fraudulent top-down approved cultural manipulations.
This is too good of a topic for me to lie or troll.
I'm supposing it's relating to this guy: Aubrey de Grey (wikipedia). He's a professor at Oxford I think who has been researching regenerative medicine: cleansing cells + healthy living, so as to extend life. Is this it OP?
Healthy living only does so much to extend your life, nowhere near the "past 130 if they choose to", and you will age accordingly(So you will be "old and wrinkly" at age 90 for example no matter how healthy you are).
The only things I know of that can actually potentially reverse or temporary stop aging is Stem cells, nanomedicine(Such as enzymes that somehow "replenish" cells, or discovering how to apply Henrietta Lack's "immortal cells" to stop aging in everyone else(As telomores are thought to be the thing that as they shrink do to every cell splitting, cause aging of the cell and eventual death of said cell, that's ceased however in the case of "immortal cells").
Then there's robotics and the prospect of "transforming" the human body with robotic machinery.
Your opinion is based on mainstream science and culture. Mostly for money grabbing and TV fluff leading people with
false hope and steering them into the hands of the Administrative State ultimately. I am well aware of the
concepts you have mentioned, but this is only part of the awareness required for what I will elaborate on in
this thread.
By the way, how many times have you been in resthomes to study the elderly? I have seen many resthome
patients who are 80 - 90 with baby smooth skin and less wrinkles than a 50 year old. These people unfortunately
have been captured by the state and have little opportunity to be aware of their own biology. Now imagine the worst
case scenario of my interest, where if these same people were well nourished via modern nutritional understandings
for most of their life on top of their genetic predisposition to look fairly healthy at such ages. There are great changes
available for people now! But you must be willing to deprogram yourself and expand your conscious awareness. Its
a growing and learning experience.
Unfortunately you're entirely wrong. The older you age the less collagen your skin has so your statament of " I have seen many resthome patients who are 60-90 with baby smooth skin" is hopelessly false. It's been proven time and time again that dietary habits and nutrition does nothing for the appearance of your skin. The biggest factors of skin aging is The Sun, UVA/UVB Rays, and Nicotine(Smoking). The Sun destroys the collagen that keeps your skin plump and smooth in appearance, and Nicotine restricts the blood vessels in your skin leading it to become more prone to dryness and subsequent wrinkles.
Healthy Living only does so much to improve your lifespan, by a few measly years. Of course that is important as it's better to be generally healthy and fit that unhealthy and restricted(physically). But, when it comes to actually improving your lifespan itself, it doesn't do much and certainly not 130+ years and above like the OP has mentioned. I really hope you guys don't believe in that nonsense that has been refuted time and time again, but it more seems like the OP is one of those snakeoil salesmen trying to sell the next "life extension product" to gain a few bucks(Would also explain why he refuses to elaborate on any of his "points").