Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans...
- Thread starter gorski
- Start date
gorski
customised free radical
As things stand, EVERYTHING in the UK is based in EXCLUSION principle!
The country is divided into Humans [maybe 15% of the population - what do you think?] and Cattle [the rest of us] categories.
The Humans have sorted out the system for themselves rather nicely and groovy!
The Cattle live in shacks, eat crap, drink crap, get crap education, shite NHS, terrible public transport and so on and on and on... Their quality and culture of living is negligible, when compared to their counterparts in the comparable countries of EU.
The principles of Solidarity and Fairness have left the building long ago, blindly following the US, becoming America Light by the day...
The only way out is - EU, Social Democracy... Don't invent hot water...
As I said, tax the rich and corporations their fair share and that would mean properly funding it.
Then, put everyone into the system and make it work really well, as the politicians keep bullshitting everybody how NHS is greatest in the world, while EVERYBODY knows it's shite and NHS keeps sending people abroad for treatment etc.
In Sweden, for instance, greatest, huge majority [almost everbody!!!] goes to the same schools, hospitals etc. etc.
I mean, the Humans in the UK keep bragging how "this is 5th or 6th economy of the world" and whatnot - but they [the Humans] keep convincing the rest [Cattle] how the UK can't afford anything but a third world country NHS, for example - one could go on, to education, public transport, pensions etc. etc....
Blimey!!! How long are you guys gonna keep schtum [I no longer live there] and dance as the Humans expect you/tell you to?!?
Once everybody is in the same NHS system, kinda integrated NHS, to go to the sub-system in question now - so that the decision makers and "captains of industry" share the experience with those who make their profits and give them votes, short of going abroad every time they need an antibiotic or having a personal physician on call and at hand 24/7, as it were, the "haves" would quickly make the system run properly... [Unless they are all useless and crap at anything and everything... And I can see a few people willing to make that argument, actually...
]
It would also mean an END to docs working "on the side" - how can they, if they are doing PROPERLY their job in NHS, for the kind of money they are getting?!? - but really pulling their weight for EVERYBODY in the system.
Further to that, the country runs an aggressive, pro-health policies, away from being the second most-obese, drunk, sedated and/or drugged up to its eyeballs etc. countries in the developed world [blindly following the US, of course, as in everything else, instead of Sweden, for example!] - firmly going towards education, prevention and so on!
For all its weight, as a market, and all the investment in the fundamental research, the UK should get a better policy towards the pharma industry, too - favouring its citizens, for a change...
But: change nothing essential/structural = keep suffering! That's the issue here!!!
The country is divided into Humans [maybe 15% of the population - what do you think?] and Cattle [the rest of us] categories.
The Humans have sorted out the system for themselves rather nicely and groovy!
The Cattle live in shacks, eat crap, drink crap, get crap education, shite NHS, terrible public transport and so on and on and on... Their quality and culture of living is negligible, when compared to their counterparts in the comparable countries of EU.
The principles of Solidarity and Fairness have left the building long ago, blindly following the US, becoming America Light by the day...
The only way out is - EU, Social Democracy... Don't invent hot water...
As I said, tax the rich and corporations their fair share and that would mean properly funding it.
Then, put everyone into the system and make it work really well, as the politicians keep bullshitting everybody how NHS is greatest in the world, while EVERYBODY knows it's shite and NHS keeps sending people abroad for treatment etc.
In Sweden, for instance, greatest, huge majority [almost everbody!!!] goes to the same schools, hospitals etc. etc.
I mean, the Humans in the UK keep bragging how "this is 5th or 6th economy of the world" and whatnot - but they [the Humans] keep convincing the rest [Cattle] how the UK can't afford anything but a third world country NHS, for example - one could go on, to education, public transport, pensions etc. etc....
Blimey!!! How long are you guys gonna keep schtum [I no longer live there] and dance as the Humans expect you/tell you to?!?
Once everybody is in the same NHS system, kinda integrated NHS, to go to the sub-system in question now - so that the decision makers and "captains of industry" share the experience with those who make their profits and give them votes, short of going abroad every time they need an antibiotic or having a personal physician on call and at hand 24/7, as it were, the "haves" would quickly make the system run properly... [Unless they are all useless and crap at anything and everything... And I can see a few people willing to make that argument, actually...
]It would also mean an END to docs working "on the side" - how can they, if they are doing PROPERLY their job in NHS, for the kind of money they are getting?!? - but really pulling their weight for EVERYBODY in the system.
Further to that, the country runs an aggressive, pro-health policies, away from being the second most-obese, drunk, sedated and/or drugged up to its eyeballs etc. countries in the developed world [blindly following the US, of course, as in everything else, instead of Sweden, for example!] - firmly going towards education, prevention and so on!
For all its weight, as a market, and all the investment in the fundamental research, the UK should get a better policy towards the pharma industry, too - favouring its citizens, for a change...
But: change nothing essential/structural = keep suffering! That's the issue here!!!
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Sorry, that's not really an answer to the question I was asking. In a material world of limited resources, labour and time, some sort of limits have to be made to the provision of services. We can't all have a gold plated house and we can't all have antimatter cancer therapy. How would you propose that these things are provided in a fair manner?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The principles you talk about in your long paragraph are very clear - I agree with them and have 2nd hand eperience via my partner of some of the idiotic ways in which the NHS is run and how attitudes to health are very skewed in this country. I made the slightest effort and sailed through the gate unimpeded. Howver, it's not the important issue here.
Let's go back to the OP. The process described may well be incredibly complicated and expensive and time consuming. It may not be physically possible to administer it to everyone who wants it. How then, would we decide whether to give it to someone? The answer can't be "everybody" and it can't be "nobody", it has, by material neccesity, to be "somebody"
These dirty, uncomfortable problems of implementation are the hardest to solve.
The earth's population is 6 billion, heading for 10 billion.
Without hydrocarbon to boost food production, the earth can support substantially fewer than 6 billion people.
The absolute supply of hydrocarbon peaked about 3 years ago, and per-capita supply peaked about 20 years ago.
QUESTION: why is researching methods of allowing people to live longer a useful thing to do?
Without hydrocarbon to boost food production, the earth can support substantially fewer than 6 billion people.
The absolute supply of hydrocarbon peaked about 3 years ago, and per-capita supply peaked about 20 years ago.
QUESTION: why is researching methods of allowing people to live longer a useful thing to do?
gorski
customised free radical
Ever heard of Malthus and co.?
It's about healthy lives, not necessarily longer, esp. considerably longer.
Hence the twofold Q, when I asked who controls the OFF switch:
1) who gets the treatment;
2) when do we say "no more of the treatment for you"?
To begin with...
It's about healthy lives, not necessarily longer, esp. considerably longer.
Hence the twofold Q, when I asked who controls the OFF switch:
1) who gets the treatment;
2) when do we say "no more of the treatment for you"?
To begin with...
So the hypothesis is that reversing the ageing process does NOT cause people to live longer? Sounds remarkably implausible.
And yes, I've heard of Malthus. Have you heard of the difference between industrial economic systems powered by fossil fuel draw down, and agrarian economic systems powered by solar influx (about which Malthus wrote, and to which we are returning?), in terms of carrying capacity?
gorski
customised free radical
Oh, boy... another one...
How on Earth did I say it did not prolong life? By which "logic", oh Mastah??? The fact it could does not automatically mean it would - depends on the levers of power. One can not say anything definite without the mechanisms of political decision making processes...
Secondly, you're making the same mistake as Malthus: presuming the worse and as if you have seen the future and all the possibilities, i.e. the knowledge of God - as if we are without the capacity for creativity, imagination, as if we do not think outside the present [possibilities limited to what we know/see now]...
How on Earth did I say it did not prolong life? By which "logic", oh Mastah??? The fact it could does not automatically mean it would - depends on the levers of power. One can not say anything definite without the mechanisms of political decision making processes...
Secondly, you're making the same mistake as Malthus: presuming the worse and as if you have seen the future and all the possibilities, i.e. the knowledge of God - as if we are without the capacity for creativity, imagination, as if we do not think outside the present [possibilities limited to what we know/see now]...
Yes yes, the logical fallacy arising from the failure to distinguish adequately between the categorical differences between a surplus of energy giving rise to technology, and technology giving rise to a surplus of energy. I had hoped that energy literacy was beginning to improve to the point where elementary conversation was possible.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
oh hell
Similar threads
