[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 109 KB, 500x667, tumblr_npwq7uFI7V1qeqwgvo1_500.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7633774 No.7633774 [Reply] [Original]

Before we had pesticides, preservatives, GMOs, and medical science people ate nothing but organic fruits and vegetables, they ate GMO free meat and healed themselves using traditional medicine.

Now we eat fruits and vegetables sprayed with chemicals, eat animals injected with hormones, and heal ourselves by consuming unnatural chemicals and blasting ourselves with radiation. We brush our teeth with flouride and put chlorine in our water.

Why has life expectancy increased?

>> No.7633786

Magic.

>> No.7633791

It's all the pure math that the mathematicians have cooked up. Mathematicians have discovered how t o extend people's lives by using Dehn surgery

>> No.7633796

>>7633774
>Why has life expectancy increased?
Short version is, it has and it hasn't, but this idea is mostly an illusion. The increase is in average life expectancy, but that itself is still arbitrary and ambiguous. For example, do you count reduction in infant mortality, or mother's dying in childbirth in your calculations? That's what drags down life expectancy so far. It also depends what populations are you going to compare, and how.

Either way, people living healthily to their 80's and 90's is not new. For example, Socrates, ~400 BC, is thought to have died in his early 70's... and not even of natural causes. It asn't uncommon.

Otherwise, there are some changes that influence most individual's lifespan.
-Existing in an ecology we've meticulously engineered and shaped to human needs which lends more to avoidance of accidental death than it'll be apt to cause it.
-Medicine. Either in a maintenance sense, or avoidance of disease.
-Net better nutrition, despite all the garbage in food, water, and air.
-Less exposure to the elements
-Less physical labor and more information. Less people working in mines, working with and or eating heavy metals, working with asbestos, etc.
-Less war.

I don't know why the notion of progress captivates people's interest so rigidly. It's very rare it isn't skewed.

>> No.7633800

Only a small population eats GMOs.

>> No.7633801

>>7633774
>and healed themselves using traditional medicine.

you mean like leeches and mercury?

>> No.7633805

>>7633801
I gather they mean like various herbs and spices.

>> No.7633806

>>7633805
oh, you mean opium and cocaine?

>> No.7633807

>>7633774
You answered your own question OP.

>> No.7633811

>>7633806
Everything you're listing is comparatively recent and isolated to relatively small regions.

>> No.7633813

>>7633811
What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#History

>> No.7633814

>>7633774
> unnatural chemical
How can an unnatural chemical exist ?

>> No.7633817

>>7633814
By not occurring naturally?

>> No.7633824

>>7633817
Then everything you see around you is unnatural.

>> No.7633826

>>7633824
yes and all of these synthetic products around you which you speak of would be hell on your body if you tried to ingest them.

>> No.7633852

>>7633824
>unclear on the concept of natural
Lrn2artificial

>> No.7633933

>>7633774
>traditional medicine
>GMO

fucking hippies get off /sci/

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>> No.7633938

>muh GMO
>muh frankenfood
>muh whole foods organic market

God damn it, go away you hippies.

>> No.7633942

>>7633938
Have fun eating all that glyphosate et al, don't be too mad other people won't eat the same garbage you deem to be properly edible.

>> No.7633945
File: 16 KB, 300x225, gmorat[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7633945

>>7633938
> goddamn you hippies why don't you eat cancer ?

>> No.7633947

>>7633774
Becuase of all the fucking chemicals, bitch.

>> No.7633952

Sanitation. 100 years ago people wear lobbed shit onto the streets. Remember the big cholera outbreak in London? Sanitation and toilets massively improved human life expectancy.

>> No.7633958

>healed themselves using traditional medicine.
Or they died from a minor infection lol.

>> No.7633979

>>7633774
>sanitation
>antibiotics
>vaccines
probably billions of premature deaths avoid just because of those three

>> No.7633990

Because pesticides, preservatives, and GMOs improve the quality of food we eat, and ensure that there is enough for everyone. When was the last time we rationed food? The 1930s? Fluoride means you are significantly less likely to die of an abcessed tooth; this killed my great-grandpa at the age of 35. Chlorine means you will probably not get dysentery, cholera, etc.; two of my grandpa's brothers died of dysentery when they were children.

I know a lot of people who are alive due to chemotherapy, radiation, etc.

Why has life expectancy increased? Because these things that so many people are afraid of are actually fucking miracles.

>> No.7633996

>>7633990
>Because pesticides, preservatives, and GMOs improve the quality of food we eat
Go on.

>and ensure that there is enough for everyone.
You should have just kept it to this part of the sentence.

>When was the last time we rationed food?
'Round the time we started wasting most of it.

>Fluoride means you are significantly less likely to die of an abcessed tooth
Perhaps, if applied via toothpaste. However I've yet to see anything indicating water fluoridation is at all necessary. In fact, a few years ago I wanted to know how it really was, so I spent a few days pouring through hundreds of papers. European, American, Chinese, primary literature, reviews, meta-analysis, all of it, and I couldn't find any means to legitimately conclude that caries rates, and tooth decay as a whole after water fluoridation, was anything more than statistical noise. It was practically random.

Besides, recent research has shown theobromine is far better and less toxic. There is absolutely no reason to defend water fluoridation. Studies claiming internal use changed the behavior of odontoblasts have been polarizing, and it's been shown the actual contact with teeth is trivial.

>> No.7633999

>>7633774
get out you dirty hippie

>> No.7634177

>>7633945
>feed 20 (!) mice from a strand known to get tumors corn, which is not their natural diet
>be surprised they get tumors
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/study-linking-genetically-modified-corn-to-cancer/
You should not be allowed to vote.

>> No.7634200

>>7633774
>Now we [chemically rearrange] chemicals and chemicals sprayed with chemicals, eat chemicals injected with chemicals , and chemicals ourselves by consuming unnatural chemicals and blasting ourselves with radiation. We brush our chemicals with chemicals and put chemicals in our chemicals.

Everything is made by chemical substances, including yourself idiot.

>> No.7634204

>>7634200
I hope you aren't out of high school and still failing to realize the flaw of that argument. To keep seeing it over and over is almost unstomachably banal, and is a near omnipresent reminder that there are alway morons on both sides of the fence.

>> No.7634208

>>7633996

I'm not one of those dudes that's going to try to discredit your entire post because of a homophone, but the word you wanted was "poring". Just for future use.

>> No.7634210

>>7634208
No, it was definitely "pouring", as written.

>> No.7634213

>>7633996
>theobromine
>safe

Have fun when all the dogs die from drinking the water.

>> No.7634217

>>7634204
>there are alway morons on both sides of the fence.

It only looks like that to you, because a moron can't understand what's going on the smart side.

>> No.7634219

>>7633996
>I've yet to see anything indicating water fluoridation is at all necessary. In fact, a few years ago I wanted to know how it really was, so I spent a few days pouring through hundreds of papers.
Then you really suck at research, because the vast bulk of the literature on the subject indicates that it is highly effective, so much so that the FDA calls public water fluoridation one of the greatest public health initiatives of all, in the same class as vaccines and seatbelts.

>> No.7634223

>>7634219
>seatbelts
There's no high quality double-blind trial that proves their efficiency.

>> No.7634227

>>7633774
>Why has life expectancy increased?
We started having nurses & doctors wash their hands with soap before delivering a baby. The reduction in deaths at zero caused life expectancy to sky-rocket.

>> No.7634234

>>7634213
The LD50 for an average sized canine is much higher than the concentrations you'd have in water. Look up how much of a typical cocoa bean is pure theobromine and figure how worried you'd really have to be.

Either way, I didn't say it should be put in public water. It'd be a good replacement for fluoride mouthwash and toothpaste.

>> No.7634236

>>7634217
Figures you'd readily embrace the dichotomy.

>> No.7634238

>>7634219
How much of this supposedly conclusive literature have you actually read yourself?

>> No.7634246
File: 9 KB, 242x208, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7634246

>>7633805
The Colonel is in the medicine industry now?

>> No.7634268

>>7634234
LD50 of DDT is large too, no food can have that much
Shark fin don't have that much mercury too

Why do people die from them?

>> No.7634271

>>7634223
You're stupid
Fuck off from this earth

>> No.7634290

>>7634268
Either accumulation from chronic exposure or secondary effects. Again, I didn't say "replace fluoride in public water with theobromine", I said theobromine works better for the same function. Don't make other people repeatedly respond to something you cooked up yourself.

>> No.7634300

>>7633774
>Why has life expectancy increased?
Because we eat fruits and vegetables sprayed with chemicals, eat animals injected with hormones, and heal ourselves by consuming unnatural chemicals and blasting ourselves with radiation. We brush our teeth with flouride and put chlorine in our water.

We do all these things because they are beneficial, despite your desire to vilify technology.
Without chlorine in the water, for instance, we'd still be getting smallpox epidemics.
"Unnatural" chemicals and radiation save lives, etc.

And by the way, all meat is "GMO free".
And "healed themselves using traditional medicine" is complete bullshit.

>> No.7634314

>>7634300
>eating animals treated with hormones is beneficial
Animals are treated with hormones so they mature quickly, which contrary to what you might assume, is not strictly to maximize yield and minimize resource consumption. It's to make a sickly animal survive a diet (composed of heavily subsidized gmo corn and soy) it isn't suited for. Why use antibiotics? Because they're all packed together and are vulnerable to disease from compromised gut pH and flora.

Any effect on fat gelling characteristics from hormone treatment is minimal. That's mainly a product of a grain-based diet, when and if it's present.

>Fruit and vegetables sprayed with pesticides and herbicides are beneficial
Typical ignorance of basic ecology and even basic biology. Gosh, what happens when you keep killing off most of a population? I wonder... If only we... if only... we had a ... uhhhh..... UH.... like... a way to model changes in collections of species over time and like... like uh.... how they individually change in response to their environment... hm. Oh well, too bad nothing like that exists that we can reference to understand how our actions pan out and affect the greater whole.

Yeah, you dump on that glyphosate. You use that hand sanitizer. You wipe down your counters with bleach. See you and that myopia in twenty years when you're having a grand ol' time.

>> No.7634324

>>7633796
>For example, do you count reduction in infant mortality, or mother's dying in childbirth in your calculations?
Yes, why the fuck wouldn't you? Just take the average age at time of death over the past X years.

>It also depends what populations are you going to compare, and how.
You fucking count all of them.

>>7633774
OP, life expectancy has increased because the harm done by the things you listed doesn't take effect until you're much older. Meanwhile science and technology have advanced far enough to mitigate more immediate causes of death.

Simple, really.

>> No.7634328
File: 95 KB, 500x375, 1414303683154.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7634328

>>7634314
First off, you're a douchebag for manufacturing quotes.
I didn't say the things you're quoting.
Secondly, if you're so right, why ARE people living longer?
Thirdly, you didn't address anything I actually said, like for instance medicine (including radiation therapy) DOES benefit people greatly, as does the "poison" in the drinking water.

>> No.7634329

>>7634324
A "0.x" really screws with an average. If you want to know how long the average adult lived, including accidental deaths, it's going to get in the way of that. You end up with meaningless nonsense like that the average life expectancy being ~40 years. No, it wasn't. If anything the median should be used to judge.

>You fucking count all of them.
Well, good luck accounting for cultures that didn't have written language, had languages we can't decode, had all their records destroyed or worn away, or never kept records at all.

You're going to end up with a biased result either way, and are better framing it by population then comparing and controlling for error accordingly.

>> No.7634333

>>7634329
>You end up with meaningless nonsense like that the average life expectancy being ~40 years. No, it wasn't.
Yes. It was.
It takes a high and a low to make an average.
In 1820's Savanna Georgia, only 60% of newborns would live to be 6.
Sure, if you make it to 6, you'll probably live to be 70+, but OP's question pertains to the entire population, not just non-toddlers.
The question is (in part) why ARE so many babies living to be schoolchildren if the Luddites are right about "muh fluoride, muh saccharine, muh GMO's" etc?
And the answer is obvious: the tinfoil crowd is wrong again.

>> No.7634336

>>7634328
>First off, you're a douchebag for manufacturing quotes.
I'd say it's your problem for not conveying your ideas clearly, then blaming others for "manufacturing" falsehoods about you.

Let's take a look at this.
>Because we eat fruits and vegetables sprayed with chemicals, eat animals injected with hormones, and heal ourselves by consuming unnatural chemicals and blasting ourselves with radiation. We brush our teeth with flouride and put chlorine in our water.

Followed by:
>We do all these things because they are beneficial, despite your desire to vilify technology.
>We do all these things
>all
>Using a logical operator meant to point to the entirety of a previously defined set or range
Yeah, right. Quite the manufacturing job.

>Secondly, if you're so right, why ARE people living longer?
I posted a while ago.
>>7633796

>Thirdly, you didn't address anything I actually said
Well, don't take it the wrong way, but I'm not actually interested in what you said about those things. It's such a broad a multifaceted topic I'd have to say far more than I really care to, and there's a decent chance I wouldn't get anything I would find too valuable back.

>as does the "poison" in the drinking water.
Probably not. It potentiates arterial calcification and affects osteoblasts / clasts in ways still unknown. It has no place being used internally.

>> No.7634339

>>7634333
>muh GMO's
This always a hard topic for me. I see the use and potential of GMOs, but think current and all foreseeable implementations are pathetic utterly garbage engineering. They're a complete joke and I can't possibly understand what you pricks see in them.

So much untapped potential. What is being done right now that's worth defending? It's trash. I'm not fond of government either, but until there's someone other than the private sector working on it, it's gonna stay that way.

>> No.7634352

>>7633774
Near unlimited access to clean water, immunization, general hygiene, proper sanitation, ambulances, refrigeration, hospitals, increased knowledge of what can actually kill you... etc

Pretty fucking stupid question when you think about it.