Gniga, of course, is more commonly known as Aging. I previously mentioned that one way to help is to join the Life Extension Foundation. Another is to donate to The Methuselah Foundation, an organization which sponsors the MPrize for extending the lifespan of a mouse, as well as other research into slowing aging.
Since aging strikes us all (except the unlucky), by helping fund this research you not only increase your chances of living a long and healthy life, but those of everyone else in the world. Seems like a worthy cause.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
patrissimo- Patri Friedman
- Patri's World
Page Summary
- : (no subject) [+2]
- corwyn_ap : (no subject) [+10]
- jacqueline1776 : (no subject) [+1]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+3]
- (Anonymous) : Who can help me with .httpaccess ? [+0]
- (Anonymous) : wholesale mobile website [+0]
- (Anonymous) : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
Although I will say that if only longevity was granted only to those who pass a 'doesn't take self too seriously' filter, it would be a pretty nice world to live forever in. Otherwise?
*Shudder*
On the other hand, knowing the people involved might make me doubt the realism of the project.
The human population is already increasing unsustainably. Third derivatives aside (as they are tricky), human population curves will eventually exceed the carrying capacity of the planet. All the projections for a slowing of the growth include 'environmental forces' in the equation. This is a nice way of saying that tons of people are going to die of something nasty (starvation perhaps).
That said, I think that a bunch of people who have serious reason to believe that they are going to live forever, would be a better boost to sustainable living than all other forces combined. Who wants to live forever on a polluted hell hole?
And I wouldn't state it quite as strongly as that. It's foolish to ignore the effect of technology on increasing carrying capacity, but that doesn't mean carrying capacity is infinite. But given that the oceans are neither used for residential space, nor food production except for a little fish, I think we have an awful lot of space left.
Offshore aquaculture is the answer, since the fish become a private stock. There is a lot of progress being made, I went to a conference last year about it.
The optimistic metaphor is to consider that the change in food production from a hunter/gatherer society to a ranching/agriculture was huge - orders of magnitude. Just for changing from harvesting wild stocks to growing domesticated ones (public -> private). It is plausible that going from fishing -> aquaculture will have a similar effect.
Current farm fishing (as I understood it), use large amounts of 'junk fish' (from the commons) to feed the product fish (salmon mostly). Unlike land animals where we eat herbivores. So it is even more devastating than commercial fishing.
There is also concern about antibiotics, oxygen depletion, and disease transmission to wild populations. Have these issues been resolved?
Disease transmission should be much lower with offshore aquaculture, where you are in the middle of nowhere instead of in a sensitive coastal region. Coastal regions have much more delicate ecologies than the deep ocean. I have not heard of any oxygen depletion issues either. It's much better to do deep ocean aquaculture, there is far more deep ocean, it's less sensitive, etc. Of course, there are more environmental challenges :).
I don't think fish works. The change you talk about was not a creation of biomass, but rather converting biomass to human edible form. We currently eat a goodly number of the fish species (or at least the Japanese do). We would need to get in at the lower level, harvest plankton for ourselves, something like that.
I'd like to meet one of these mystical 10 percenters.
where i can fined full information about .httpaccess file syntaxis?
http://www.wellbeinghealthylife.com/