According to a growing number of biologists life doesn't have to be so short.
Think of your body as a machine. A well oiled, well lubricated machine can last longer than one not properly maintained. We've seen an increased lifespan over a historically small period of time, that it'd be safe to assume this trend increasing. Although the computer principal for for double power every year may be slowing, this bodily principal has room to get better. Aging scientists are now intriqued by the growing evidence that long life is a relatively few base substitutions away.
If the body is a machine, then genetics would be the central command. It's believed that parts of this command structure are self-limiting. In other words there is a pre-established time limit from the moment your DNA begins expression into protein. Theortically this limit could be removed right. Bypassed? Without a time limit, the DNA could replicate endlessly right?
No. There are a lot more details glossed over in this blog, I would recommend reading "The Molecular Biology of the Gene" written by James Watson, among others. It is on a regulatory basis that these news studies are hopeful for people, if the longevity pathway can be elucidated, then it could potentially apply to anyone.
Personally I can see human beings aging to a tremendously rip age of well over 100. However skeptical you are now, 100 years ago for you to say that people would be averaging an age of 70, you'd call me crazy as well. My problem with living this long is what to do? As a theory capitalism is not giving everyone a job, a feat which the communists have managed FYI. I can't imagine doing a job for 50 years, or 75 years. The same task every day.
On top of what to do, what will you see? People you know will eventually being dying of random accidents. It happens now, but with medicine providing longer life, you'd only start seeing people dropping dead from freak occurrences.
I think I'll revisit this post in the future. Till then keep aging.
June 10, 2009
What cost $20 billion, and could end civilization?
This site is a news compilation website which relies on translators to read and decipher foreign press articles, particularly those articles reporting on the United States.
Today's international articles: "DPRK's Nuclear Test Hailed as Just Measure for Self-Defence" (actual article is under PAST NEWS, then from June 9th). In addition, I will also be reading an article on the same event but from an american press source: "Clinton Warns N. Korea on Missiles".
More often than not soceity considers objectivity to be a singular stance, wholly absent the human element. However removed from humanity an individual writes, it's impossible to completely purge this fundamental trait. Take the first article from the Korean Central News Agency operating out of Pyongyang N. Korea. It is written by propagandists, who are strictly sanctioned and regulated. It can clearly show bias, and descriptive language which implicates bad connotation for america. This individual has no choice though. Nothing is published without the approval of the N. Korean government, who according to the west is a totalitarian extremist terrorist state.
The message from the N. Korean press is that they are the overall victims in this relationship. The missile test is a necessary step toward overall national security. To them America has allied with the traitorous South Koreans, and are currently positioned along the same DMZ which has been for nearly 60 years. It seems alien to my intellect to have a constant military border with say another state like Texas. Oklahoma would be N. Korea in this scenario. All trade has international embargoes against it. On top of that the United Nations now considers Oklahoma one of the worst regimes on the planet in regards to human rights. You get the message! It's dire here in Oklahoma(N. Korea).
Regarding the New York Times short article on Clinton's warning to N. Korea, the article reads neutrally, however still contains language which implicates negative connotation. Admittingly, a part of that, is that this diction is perfectly available and fully justified in its use. However America's arogance in foreign policy is not a polarizing view. The so-called experts hold mostly the same contempt and bull pulpit stance for the rest of the world. America still hold's an embargo against Cuba, we still invaded Iraq, and we are currently deploying more troops to Afghanistan.
The assumption that America has any more morality than N. Korea is intellectually unsound. It is impossible to quantify, and therefore the adventurist stance of America is no better than an extremist of Al Qaeda.
Saying that, America's foreign policy will never change. The power circles of the policy machine will always influence the President toward more bombs, more troops in endless bases around the world, and less isolationism. The imperalist always win this argument because they are the ones making the most money. Back to topic.
Should N. Korea be allowed to have nuclear weapons, or long range missiles. That answer from my nuclear submarine brother Ethan, is hell no. He believes that America has the right to parade around the worlds ocean with instruments of war capable of blowing the earth out of orbit. I salute you sir! However I disagree. If only the world was a big school yard, then the weapons of mass death would be like the bully who grew tallest first. (Which was me) But evently America will have to learn that the other kids will grow tall as well, and our big guns need to shrink.
These "rogue nations" are not collapsing due to our economic and military influence, perhaps we need to rethink our strategy. Media is the first step in this campaign. The N. Korean media is never going to be pro-American, however it's a dubious claim to think they have any real influence over the population. However American media, need to realize that foreign policy is relatively the same for both parties, our international attitudes are the same, and as such the media is exascerbating the situation. If say for instance a genuine argument was brewing in America, and yet never covered fairly, or with only one argument, then it would seem logical that the elite foreign policy stance that we see now is prevelant. I belive there is a legitimate debate presently about America's stance in the world. the Obama administration has made a cautious step forward, say with Cuban travel policies, American temperment abroad, yet we have much further to go. N. Korea isn't going anywhere! Neither are we. We need a change in approach. Conventional thinking isn't working, and unless a new approach to American thinking is hashed out, nothing will ever change.
Today's international articles: "DPRK's Nuclear Test Hailed as Just Measure for Self-Defence" (actual article is under PAST NEWS, then from June 9th). In addition, I will also be reading an article on the same event but from an american press source: "Clinton Warns N. Korea on Missiles".
More often than not soceity considers objectivity to be a singular stance, wholly absent the human element. However removed from humanity an individual writes, it's impossible to completely purge this fundamental trait. Take the first article from the Korean Central News Agency operating out of Pyongyang N. Korea. It is written by propagandists, who are strictly sanctioned and regulated. It can clearly show bias, and descriptive language which implicates bad connotation for america. This individual has no choice though. Nothing is published without the approval of the N. Korean government, who according to the west is a totalitarian extremist terrorist state.
The message from the N. Korean press is that they are the overall victims in this relationship. The missile test is a necessary step toward overall national security. To them America has allied with the traitorous South Koreans, and are currently positioned along the same DMZ which has been for nearly 60 years. It seems alien to my intellect to have a constant military border with say another state like Texas. Oklahoma would be N. Korea in this scenario. All trade has international embargoes against it. On top of that the United Nations now considers Oklahoma one of the worst regimes on the planet in regards to human rights. You get the message! It's dire here in Oklahoma(N. Korea).
Regarding the New York Times short article on Clinton's warning to N. Korea, the article reads neutrally, however still contains language which implicates negative connotation. Admittingly, a part of that, is that this diction is perfectly available and fully justified in its use. However America's arogance in foreign policy is not a polarizing view. The so-called experts hold mostly the same contempt and bull pulpit stance for the rest of the world. America still hold's an embargo against Cuba, we still invaded Iraq, and we are currently deploying more troops to Afghanistan.
The assumption that America has any more morality than N. Korea is intellectually unsound. It is impossible to quantify, and therefore the adventurist stance of America is no better than an extremist of Al Qaeda.
Saying that, America's foreign policy will never change. The power circles of the policy machine will always influence the President toward more bombs, more troops in endless bases around the world, and less isolationism. The imperalist always win this argument because they are the ones making the most money. Back to topic.
Should N. Korea be allowed to have nuclear weapons, or long range missiles. That answer from my nuclear submarine brother Ethan, is hell no. He believes that America has the right to parade around the worlds ocean with instruments of war capable of blowing the earth out of orbit. I salute you sir! However I disagree. If only the world was a big school yard, then the weapons of mass death would be like the bully who grew tallest first. (Which was me) But evently America will have to learn that the other kids will grow tall as well, and our big guns need to shrink.
These "rogue nations" are not collapsing due to our economic and military influence, perhaps we need to rethink our strategy. Media is the first step in this campaign. The N. Korean media is never going to be pro-American, however it's a dubious claim to think they have any real influence over the population. However American media, need to realize that foreign policy is relatively the same for both parties, our international attitudes are the same, and as such the media is exascerbating the situation. If say for instance a genuine argument was brewing in America, and yet never covered fairly, or with only one argument, then it would seem logical that the elite foreign policy stance that we see now is prevelant. I belive there is a legitimate debate presently about America's stance in the world. the Obama administration has made a cautious step forward, say with Cuban travel policies, American temperment abroad, yet we have much further to go. N. Korea isn't going anywhere! Neither are we. We need a change in approach. Conventional thinking isn't working, and unless a new approach to American thinking is hashed out, nothing will ever change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
