Why The Future Is Better Than You Think [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why The Future Is Better Than You Think


Syclone538
03-15-2012, 21:36
From Reason. May or may not be S&P related, but I'd be interested to hear S&P's take on it.

Why The Future Is Better Than You Think - YouTube

quake
03-17-2012, 13:49
Good stuff and not unrealistic imo. Not necessarily what "will" come to pass, but absolutely what "could". I particularly liked the mention of the SlingShot by Dean Kamen; I'd never heard of it before. After looking into it just a little bit, it looks like a super-efficient distillation unit with a lot of potential. Distilled water consumption has its own issues, but they're much more easily remedied than the issue of having NO water for consumption. When/if that becomes mass-produced or anywhere close to mass produced, that would be a very good thing imo.

There's a lot of problems that can be solved with burgeoning technology if fears, despots, and general meanness would just stay out of the way long enough.

Linh40
03-17-2012, 18:16
He lost me at 5:52

GMO is evil, please leave scientist out of my food. Plus everything is corn (gmo corn) feed.

Then you got large fast food places injecting hormones etc into their chicken and they grow so fast their bones are unable to support them then they are killed.

why do you think kids grow so big these days?

Then you got the "access to water" claim another bs. When large companies enter a poor country to produce water they restrict access to lakes for the locals and then charge large amount of money for water hook up so even though the people don't have clean water they still have "access" to it when they decide to pay they can have the water since the pipe is within a certain distance from their home.

People living longer, well yeah that's because we are using data from people born in 1920 who had REAL food. Plus people more people are dying from cancer etc with all our medical advances.

racerford
03-17-2012, 21:23
......

People living longer, well yeah that's because we are using data from people born in 1920 who had REAL food. Plus people more people are dying from cancer etc with all our medical advances.

People have to die from something, as you prevent deaths from one cause (infections, malnutrition, malaria, polio, etc.) the percentage of deaths from other causes go up even without a lower death rate. If you live long enough you will get cancer. Cancer is one disease that have not had tremendous success in curing.

More people die of cancer now than they did in the 1800's because they know what caused their death, other than "natural causes". We live longer than they did 150 years ago in spite of all the dangerous chemicals we have introduced in quantity in the enviroment because science has been a LARGE net benefit to man.

Bolster
03-17-2012, 21:24
People living longer, well yeah that's because we are using data from people born in 1920 who had REAL food. Plus people more people are dying from cancer etc with all our medical advances.

This last part is magical "Silent Spring" thinking. People actually are living longer and it's not because ganny and grampy were eating oatmeal in the 1920s. The reason more people are dying of cancer is because THEY'RE LIVING LONGER in the first place. Because fewer people are dying young of rubella, measles, flu, and polio, they're dying older of cancer.

I've seen this amazing graph, it shows how many chemicals are being created and released, next to a graph of life expectancy. They both go UP. Rachel Carson was a crock. Don't be a chemophobe. We're not dying of chemicals; with a few notable exceptions, their influence has been overwhelmingly positive for lengthening our lives. We're dying because we're mortal humans. If cancer is ever "cured" we'll die of something else.

When you're under Obama's burden of paying for all the baby boomers' life-extending medical advances (the cost estimate of which recently DOUBLED), ask yourself, are you happy all those non-working people are living so much longer and costing so much more? Or is it time to break out the cigarettes for the old folks?

Glock!9
03-17-2012, 23:50
Looks really interesting to me. I am going to get the book.

Linh40
03-18-2012, 00:59
So I guess people dying from cancer in their 40s and 50s is due to them living longer?

I wasn't talking about old people dying from cancer. I'm all for science but just not in my food.

Sgt. Rambo
03-18-2012, 06:39
Same with me Linh40...keep science out of the food. In my opinion, the "science" behind the food now equals control of the food.

series1811
03-18-2012, 06:47
This point was brought up during the tobacco suits the state attorneys general filed against the big manufacturers for increased state medicare costs due to smoking.

Some statistician somewhere pointed out that people getting sick and dying early from smoking, actually resulted in a net benefit to the government, due to the shorter time smokers would be alive on average, and the correspondingly less social security and medicare payouts that would have to be made on them in their lifetime.

He pointed out that if we really wanted to save social security, we should be trying to get everybody who would, to smoke.

Cruel, but accurate. :supergrin:

cyrsequipment
03-18-2012, 08:07
why do you think kids grow so big these days?



Huh?

"Kids grow big these days" because they are not starving and they are not subject to debilitating diseass like they were 80 years ago.

I'm not saying that hormones are a good thing by any means but don't jump onto the conspiracy wagon with everything.

bdcochran
03-18-2012, 09:12
I would encourage people to do their own research.

I have been alive a lot longer than most people and could recite many contradictions about food - coming from official government sources. Eat well marbled beef became eat lean cuts. Eat three meals a day became eat sparingly. Drink milk - when most people are allergic. Eat dairy products became avoid dairy products. Your surplus government food program was delivering healthy processed meats and cheese that is discouraged today.

As best I can determine, most people died by age 5, largely through "childhood diseases", bad water, unhygienic doctors and living conditions. So, about age 40 was it in 1900. However, if you survived the first 5 years, you did pretty well. However, if you were a farmer, you were invalided by age 40 because of physical injuries that are routinely repaired today.

Fast forward. I read a few studies that indicated that if all forms of cancer were eliminated in the US, the average life span would be increased about 18 months. If all forms of circulatory disease were eliminated, the life span would be increased about 7 years.

Having access to accurate health information and services in the world doesn't necessarily mean that people act positively. Some of the fattest, unhealthiest people in the world are the employees of Kaiser. Another example is that I live in a city that has its water tested regularly and has been rated as clean. Yet, you see ignorant people routinely spending hard earned money buying the same water outside the supermarket from the vending machines. (When you want to argue, I represented one of the two largest commercial water purveyors in my state and know about water quality.)

Phaze5ive
03-18-2012, 21:41
So I guess people dying from cancer in their 40s and 50s is due to them living longer?

I wasn't talking about old people dying from cancer. I'm all for science but just not in my food.

Life expectancy in the US in 1920's was ~50 years. Life expectancy now is ~70 years, and that's factoring in the millions of people kill each year due to violence and accidents.

Cancers have been killing people forever, but it's just seems more prevalent now because more people ARE living longer to be diagnose with it and doctors are making more cancer diagnosis because they know more about cancers than they did in the past.

bdcochran
03-19-2012, 01:54
I watched a rare film of Moscow during the winter of 1908. No cars. No trucks. One horse sleds.

The people had no idea of the events that were going to sweep them up. Everyone in the film is now dead.

Between then and now, there were the 1917 epidemic, a civil war, deliberate purging of the wealthy and middle classes, two world wars, the starvation of the Ukraine, domestic terror.

During the Soviet days, it was illegal to show films made before the revolution because the times had been so much better.

In November, one of my best friends died. She spent some time in an orphanage as a kid. Her first husband was an alcoholic and she came to California as a teenage divorcee with a child. She baked pies and worked as a waitress. She died a millionairess. Her future could not have been predicted.

Your future may or may not be better. Just enjoy the ride so long as you can.

wjv
03-19-2012, 10:43
Plus people more people are dying from cancer etc with all our medical advances.

BULL****. . .

Cancer is a fairly current term.

Prior to that Cancer was called Consumption, "lung disease", Gut Rot and a half dozen other names, depending on what variation of Cancer you had.

Many many people died from Cancer. They just didn't call it that because they didn't know what Cancer was.

pugman
03-20-2012, 17:23
Cancers have been killing people forever, but it's just seems more prevalent now because more people ARE living longer to be diagnose with it and doctors are making more cancer diagnosis because they know more about cancers than they did in the past.

True. I've read time and time again all men show signs of prostate cancer when they die (they may even have it....can't remember the exact details of the article). The fact people are living longer has allowed the medical community to determine this.

Having access to accurate health information and services in the world doesn't necessarily mean that people act positively. Some of the fattest, unhealthiest people in the world are the employees of Kaiser.

More truth than you know.

I work for one of the largest heatlh insurance providers in the world. I have access to the claim information of tens of millions of people, contracts for ASO groups, etc.

The first day I started working for them six years ago I was shocked how many overweight smokers worked in my building of 500 associates.

I can run queries on subscribers and its shocking how few people get a regular health exam, or woman who get a breast or men a prostate exam. Some very large medical groups have less than 10% of their subscribers get these free
services. No copay, no deductible....its preventative and covered at 100% - yet people refuse to get it done.

Paul53
03-20-2012, 18:18
Quit smoking & drinking, watch your weight, eat the ideal diet, see your doctor regularly and follow his instructions to the letter and some day you're gonna feel really stupid sitting in some ER dying of nothing!

You're born. You die. Enjoy the interval!

pugman
03-21-2012, 05:13
Quit smoking & drinking, watch your weight, eat the ideal diet, see your doctor regularly and follow his instructions to the letter and some day you're gonna feel really stupid sitting in some ER dying of nothing!

You're born. You die. Enjoy the interval!

This all depends...I don't care about the end...as you pointed out its the time before I get to the ER which counts.

I'm in good shape. I'm not a guy who works out 3 hours a night nor do I run marathons but I have a lifting, streching, running routine. I wasn't always like this. At 42 I'm in the best shape of my life.

I have friends who are exactly how you describe above..smokers, spend at least one weekday and weekend night in the bar, overweight and haven't had a physical in years. I don't judge...ever...so I guess you can say they enjoy their life.

I would say the time they spend in the bar is about equal to the time I spend in the gym give or take.

For the record, I enjoy the occassional cigar and have a drink nearly every day be it a beer, glass of wine or bourbon and water.

The difference is the time I don't spend in the gym and they don't spend in the bar. These friends get winded bowling, several have given up hunting because they couldn't handle the physical part of driving the woods.

Ironically, the owner of the bar I used to work in is still alive. He used to put down a liter of vodka, brandy or whiskey every day, smoked 2-3 packs a day, ate fried bar food most of his life and has survived two heart attacks. He is 79.

We were at my wife's cousin's funeral about two months ago. Very active guy...played softball 3 nights a week in the summer and basketball in the winter. He dropped dead at 40 of a massive heart attack - again, ironically it was on the basketball court.

When I look at these two I say: would I rather spend a shorter life playing ball, hunting, and as you say enjoy the interval (BTW, I'm stealing your phrase :supergrin:) or sitting in a bar

Personally, I would rather take the former