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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |