A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Survival and health....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 9th, 2007, 02:36 PM posted to alt.support.diet
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Survival and health....

are two different sides of the coin of life. In order for a species to
survive, it has to only accomplish one major function.....reproduce.
After reproduction, many species simply die. Hey, salmon spawn and
die, and so do many insects. In fact, some insects become meals for
the survival of their offspring. Nature is not at all concerned with
longevity much beyond that except where care of young is required.
That is certainly true of humans since we have relatively few
offspring and they need lots of individual care, so nature seems to
have built into itself a "natural" programmed life cycle. Since women
can reproduce starting at about 13, that becomes a working definition
of a generation for the purpose of this point. Longevity is even less
important for men, biologically speaking, but men have no natural
reason to live any longer than women even though the selection process
would have been determined by reproduction, thus by women, and not
men. Add on another 13 years of care-giving and perhaps as many as 13
children and you have about all the "purpose" of life nature intended
for a human....26 years. After that if you drop dead, Mother Nature
could care less. So much for the "purpose of life".

This narrative points out the disconnect between eating and longevity.
Eating is related to survivability, as in not starving to death.
Nature even allows you to overeat and store fat to get you past the
next period until more food passes your way. Of course I'm talking
evolution and survival of the fittest here, straight out of Darwin.

It isn't that nature WANTS us to die young. It just doesn't care in
that it was never programmed into our genes to live to a ripe old age.
Longevity doesn't serve any need and thus there was never a genetic
predisposition for a long-life, yet some people can live to 100.

It gets worse actually. Since food was throughout history hard to come
by for most, nature allows us to get really fat and desire huge
amounts of high-calorie food like fats since the alternative was that
you might starve before your next meal thus ending your genetic line.
No wonder people have trouble with their weight. Overeating is simply
a survival instinct and like all instincts it is very difficult to
control. This is why we need to take control of Mother Nature, who is
more like an enemy rather than a friend as far as longevity is
concerned, and eat only what we need to stay healthy. People can argue
about how much food, what kind (vegetarian vs. animal for example) and
what mix of carbs, fat and protein is healthiest, but science seems to
tell us that it is important to be thin and exercise in order to live
a long life. dkw


  #2  
Old December 9th, 2007, 04:15 PM posted to alt.support.diet
honeybunch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Survival and health....

On Dec 9, 8:36 am, " wrote:
are two different sides of the coin of life. In order for a species to
survive, it has to only accomplish one major function.....reproduce.
After reproduction, many species simply die. Hey, salmon spawn and
die, and so do many insects. In fact, some insects become meals for
the survival of their offspring. Nature is not at all concerned with
longevity much beyond that except where care of young is required.
That is certainly true of humans since we have relatively few
offspring and they need lots of individual care, so nature seems to
have built into itself a "natural" programmed life cycle. Since women
can reproduce starting at about 13, that becomes a working definition
of a generation for the purpose of this point. Longevity is even less
important for men, biologically speaking, but men have no natural
reason to live any longer than women even though the selection process
would have been determined by reproduction, thus by women, and not
men. Add on another 13 years of care-giving and perhaps as many as 13
children and you have about all the "purpose" of life nature intended
for a human....26 years. After that if you drop dead, Mother Nature
could care less. So much for the "purpose of life".

This narrative points out the disconnect between eating and longevity.
Eating is related to survivability, as in not starving to death.
Nature even allows you to overeat and store fat to get you past the
next period until more food passes your way. Of course I'm talking
evolution and survival of the fittest here, straight out of Darwin.

It isn't that nature WANTS us to die young. It just doesn't care in
that it was never programmed into our genes to live to a ripe old age.
Longevity doesn't serve any need and thus there was never a genetic
predisposition for a long-life, yet some people can live to 100.

It gets worse actually. Since food was throughout history hard to come
by for most, nature allows us to get really fat and desire huge
amounts of high-calorie food like fats since the alternative was that
you might starve before your next meal thus ending your genetic line.
No wonder people have trouble with their weight. Overeating is simply
a survival instinct and like all instincts it is very difficult to
control. This is why we need to take control of Mother Nature, who is
more like an enemy rather than a friend as far as longevity is
concerned, and eat only what we need to stay healthy. People can argue
about how much food, what kind (vegetarian vs. animal for example) and
what mix of carbs, fat and protein is healthiest, but science seems to
tell us that it is important to be thin and exercise in order to live
a long life. dkw


Human childhood is rather long...it is at least 15 years before an
human infant can live in the wild so it takes a village to raise a
human.... grandmothers often raise infants to this day. You have
shown us vague exsmples of Mother Nature's quick disposal of
humans. The human brain continues to be valuable into old age which
gives humans an edge over mother nature. The venus of willendorf from
24,000 BC shows that fat humans have been happy and beloved since day
one. Don't discredit our crafty genes which make us an excellent match
for mother nature well into old age.
  #3  
Old December 9th, 2007, 09:00 PM posted to alt.support.diet
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Survival and health....

On Dec 9, 7:15 am, honeybunch wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:36 am, " wrote:





are two different sides of the coin of life. In order for a species to
survive, it has to only accomplish one major function.....reproduce.
After reproduction, many species simply die. Hey, salmon spawn and
die, and so do many insects. In fact, some insects become meals for
the survival of their offspring. Nature is not at all concerned with
longevity much beyond that except where care of young is required.
That is certainly true of humans since we have relatively few
offspring and they need lots of individual care, so nature seems to
have built into itself a "natural" programmed life cycle. Since women
can reproduce starting at about 13, that becomes a working definition
of a generation for the purpose of this point. Longevity is even less
important for men, biologically speaking, but men have no natural
reason to live any longer than women even though the selection process
would have been determined by reproduction, thus by women, and not
men. Add on another 13 years of care-giving and perhaps as many as 13
children and you have about all the "purpose" of life nature intended
for a human....26 years. After that if you drop dead, Mother Nature
could care less. So much for the "purpose of life".


This narrative points out the disconnect between eating and longevity.
Eating is related to survivability, as in not starving to death.
Nature even allows you to overeat and store fat to get you past the
next period until more food passes your way. Of course I'm talking
evolution and survival of the fittest here, straight out of Darwin.


It isn't that nature WANTS us to die young. It just doesn't care in
that it was never programmed into our genes to live to a ripe old age.
Longevity doesn't serve any need and thus there was never a genetic
predisposition for a long-life, yet some people can live to 100.


It gets worse actually. Since food was throughout history hard to come
by for most, nature allows us to get really fat and desire huge
amounts of high-calorie food like fats since the alternative was that
you might starve before your next meal thus ending your genetic line.
No wonder people have trouble with their weight. Overeating is simply
a survival instinct and like all instincts it is very difficult to
control. This is why we need to take control of Mother Nature, who is
more like an enemy rather than a friend as far as longevity is
concerned, and eat only what we need to stay healthy. People can argue
about how much food, what kind (vegetarian vs. animal for example) and
what mix of carbs, fat and protein is healthiest, but science seems to
tell us that it is important to be thin and exercise in order to live
a long life. dkw


Human childhood is rather long...it is at least 15 years before an
human infant can live in the wild so it takes a village to raise a
human.... grandmothers often raise infants to this day. You have
shown us vague exsmples of Mother Nature's quick disposal of
humans. The human brain continues to be valuable into old age which
gives humans an edge over mother nature. The venus of willendorf from
24,000 BC shows that fat humans have been happy and beloved since day
one. Don't discredit our crafty genes which make us an excellent match
for mother nature well into old age.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


It wouldn't take nature alone to change that, since young women could
and did marry older men who would sort of take care of them starting
at 12 or 13. I imagine a few thousand years ago, as soon as a woman
could conceive, she tended to become pregnant. Granted, this has very
little to do with quality of life, but unless people understand how
nature works, they often confuse cause and effect and "reasons" for
things being as they are. This is a little more philosophical than
diet related, but my whole purpose was to try and explain why people
tend to overeat, yet this is not good for them in the long run any
more.

Being fat was probably a little rare and reserved for the head honchos
just a few thousand years ago. Most people were too busy working to
get fat. In fact, they had to spend a lot of energy just hunting for
food. Perhaps fatness was associated with wealth, or lack of
sickness and akin to how teenagers idolize rock stars because of their
success. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. dkw

  #4  
Old December 9th, 2007, 09:09 PM posted to alt.support.diet
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 663
Default Survival and health....

On Dec 9, 7:15 am, honeybunch wrote:
On Dec 9, 8:36 am, " wrote:





are two different sides of the coin of life. In order for a species to
survive, it has to only accomplish one major function.....reproduce.
After reproduction, many species simply die. Hey, salmon spawn and
die, and so do many insects. In fact, some insects become meals for
the survival of their offspring. Nature is not at all concerned with
longevity much beyond that except where care of young is required.
That is certainly true of humans since we have relatively few
offspring and they need lots of individual care, so nature seems to
have built into itself a "natural" programmed life cycle. Since women
can reproduce starting at about 13, that becomes a working definition
of a generation for the purpose of this point. Longevity is even less
important for men, biologically speaking, but men have no natural
reason to live any longer than women even though the selection process
would have been determined by reproduction, thus by women, and not
men. Add on another 13 years of care-giving and perhaps as many as 13
children and you have about all the "purpose" of life nature intended
for a human....26 years. After that if you drop dead, Mother Nature
could care less. So much for the "purpose of life".


This narrative points out the disconnect between eating and longevity.
Eating is related to survivability, as in not starving to death.
Nature even allows you to overeat and store fat to get you past the
next period until more food passes your way. Of course I'm talking
evolution and survival of the fittest here, straight out of Darwin.


It isn't that nature WANTS us to die young. It just doesn't care in
that it was never programmed into our genes to live to a ripe old age.
Longevity doesn't serve any need and thus there was never a genetic
predisposition for a long-life, yet some people can live to 100.


It gets worse actually. Since food was throughout history hard to come
by for most, nature allows us to get really fat and desire huge
amounts of high-calorie food like fats since the alternative was that
you might starve before your next meal thus ending your genetic line.
No wonder people have trouble with their weight. Overeating is simply
a survival instinct and like all instincts it is very difficult to
control. This is why we need to take control of Mother Nature, who is
more like an enemy rather than a friend as far as longevity is
concerned, and eat only what we need to stay healthy. People can argue
about how much food, what kind (vegetarian vs. animal for example) and
what mix of carbs, fat and protein is healthiest, but science seems to
tell us that it is important to be thin and exercise in order to live
a long life. dkw


Human childhood is rather long...it is at least 15 years before an
human infant can live in the wild so it takes a village to raise a
human.... grandmothers often raise infants to this day. You have
shown us vague exsmples of Mother Nature's quick disposal of
humans. The human brain continues to be valuable into old age which
gives humans an edge over mother nature. The venus of willendorf from
24,000 BC shows that fat humans have been happy and beloved since day
one. Don't discredit our crafty genes which make us an excellent match
for mother nature well into old age.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I also think the cooperation you see is a kind of survival practice.
It took hunting groups to kill game effectively, plus somebody was
always trying to kill you and take your food, etc, so there was safety
in numbers. Afterall, many primates like apes live in communities as
well and for the same reasons. It would have been the basis of laws as
well, since there had to be some law and order within the community.
Apes even ostracize and banish their own for not following the rules.
dkw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Starbucks Survival Guide jmk General Discussion 4 May 29th, 2006 01:46 AM
LC diet delays prostate cancer, prolongs survival Hannah Gruen Low Carbohydrate Diets 3 April 6th, 2006 01:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.