aurum

Great points here. It would be one thing if Bryan wanted to be a mega-rich guy quietly experimenting with longevity on himself out of the public eye. But he’s convinced that what he is doing is in service of humanity’s ultimate “Don’t Die” mission. So he wants to start a movement, which is always a potentially dangerous thing. Another big critique I would make is people thinking they can just copy Bryan’s protocol. The whole point behind what he is doing is that it’s supposed to be highly individualized and based in robust data. If you think just purchasing his supplements and will give you the same result, this is wrong. And he knows this, but it seems like he encourages people anyway. Also, are we even prepared as a society for such a massive leap in longevity of people? How are we going to have to restructure things when people are suddenly living almost twice as long? All in all maybe it will turn out for the best. Maybe it would encourage people to take their health more seriously and ultimately advance longevity science. But there is going to be a lot of negative consequences from this.

All good points. I think we are mostly in agreement. The only point of contention I might have is that there is very little that is still “natural” about human life. And it’s only going to keep becoming more “unnatural” in the future as we keep evolving. Even those whole foods are GMO’d and grown by industrial agriculture, which people then pickup by car at a grocery store with money. All of this is completely unnatural by most definitions. The reality of natural is that much of it sucked so bad that we needed to create unnatural.

For sure. The issue is not necessarily having power itself. As you pointed out, all living things need some power. It’s more about distribution, imbalances, self-entrenchment and whether or not you excessively seek to remove power from others for your own gain.

Not sure if you’re disagreeing with me or just adding on. Yes everything you wrote here is correct.

I made it about men for the purposes of historical accuracy. We’ve have several thousand years of patriarchy, not matriarchy. This is a dramatic historical asymmetry. Obviously all genders are capable of potentially abusing power or being abused by it. But just saying that doesn’t accurately reflect why feminism became popular. I took a quick look through the research that has been done on this question with GPT and it seems to mostly suggest you are correct. The asymmetries that do exist are related to sexual harassment, intimate partner violence and the ways in which power is accumulated / abused. At the same time, I think it’s an important question to ask ourselves why we’ve had thousands of years of patriarchy and not matriarchy. Why did society shake out that way? Was it just random? Or are there some real differences here in terms of men and women’s desire to hold power? On this question, the research seems to suggest an asymmetry with men desiring more power than women. If this is the case, then it would be wise for men to more strongly examine their relationship with power. The more you want power, the more you need to be aware of its ability to corrupt you. Otherwise you are dangerous.

We have TRIED these kind of traditional arrangements as a society already. The result is that women have little to no power in the relationship and often end up being abused. This is a large reason why we had feminism. Women needed to be more independent in order to avoid these kind of situations. Because unfortunately men could just not be trusted to not abuse their power. In addition, we want to make sure we do not discount the gifts that women can genuniely bring to the workplace and positions of power. We are in a modern society that needs intelligence, empathy and other forms of pro-social behavior, not just brute manliness. If women truly want to be in a more traditional role, that's ultimately their choice. It can work for some people. But with millions of different women in society, many will not fix into that box. And it's a mistake to try and force them.

But what if measurement shows the opposite? That's obvious the argument Bryan's team is making. Are you so sure about your theory that you will go against what the data is showing? Don't forget that evolution is not interested in optimal human health. Evolutionary, you are set up to have good health for a short time in your youth and then that's pretty much it. After that, everything goes to hell. What if we need to do something "unnatural" in order to create optimal human health? Also, we evolutionarily evolved to do many things. Many of which killed us. If we are going off of history / evolution, how do we know which things that humans used to do we should keep and which can we let go of? But where do you draw the line on what is "natural"? Humans are natural. Humans then created sunscreen. Why is that unnatural? And how do you know that natural is better?

That would be a problem. But also, such an argument can always be made. Because no matter how much you measure, you can always theoretically measure more. In this case, they missed measuring these hypothetical genes or compounds affected by sunlight. Therefore this is potentially an argument in favor of more measurement, not less. Although obviously a line must be drawn somewhere. You could theoretically use measurement to answer that question.

Such as?

Measurement is a good strategy when it comes to health. Health sits strongly in the domain of science. In my opinion, the issue is more of his underlying Don't Die philosophy. He thinks survival is humanity's top objective since we are about to align with super intelligent AI. Then we will be able to live forever thanks to perfect health. This is the bigger issue.

Any chance of talking you out of that?

@James123 Warrior strength, my friend. The good news is that he is being monitored at the ICU. He can make it out of this.

@Ross in addition to some of the points that have been made, I think you may be underestimating how bad Blue can get and all the benefits of Orange. Consider that most totalitarian regimes involve a strong amount of Blue. And that really it was Orange that rebelled away from these kind of top down structures, as well as brought in industrialism and modern science.

Radical open-mindedness required: Honestly it’s hard for me to make sense of exactly what is happening here. Assuming this is true, the idea is that these “souls” can enter and exit the body. But what exactly is a soul anyway? And what does it mean to enter and exit a physical body? None of my previous awakening experiences or contemplations have answered these questions. Regardless, it’s evidence that consciousness is way funkier than most people realize.

From what I understand of Leo's latest insights, he suggests that they invalidate much of the standard non duality paradigm. Much in the same way science invalidates certain Creationist ideas. Therefore expecting everyone to play nice is not going to happen. There is a fundamental disagreement that needs to be worked out. We can keep it civil and engage in basic respect, but probably some tomatoes will be thrown.

@jacknine119 It's pretty standard law of attraction material mixed with christianity from what I understand. Your results from any online course will mostly come down to how seriously you take it.

The situation is asymmetrical. People are not putting their trust in any one individual person or idea. They are putting their trust in the institution of science and the peer-review process of thousands of medical professionals. You are one pharmacist who lacks research to support your thinking. And I don't say that to disparage your ideas or attack you. I say that because I believe you can do better. I respect that and I believe you. But I'm sorry, that's not good enough. We are talking about atherosclerosis, one of the most deadly conditions on the planet. People will not, and should not, just believe you. There are tons of people with all kinds of theories that feel just as strongly about them as you do. And that vast majority of them are wrong. This is why we have peer-review. You can criticize this process for being corrupt, subject to group-think or limited in whatever way you like. But it's still the best option that we have as a society for filtering out medical nonsense. Research comes first, then dissemination. Great. Get a PhD, get funding and prove it. Alternatively, you can continue to play outside the system. But I would really consider the downsides of that.

Critiques of Trump have been clearly made by democrats and those on the left since 2016. The problem is not the lack of critiques, the problem is a lack of taking these critiques seriously by MAGA. No one can force you to listen.

Poker is not a higher consciousness LP. Stay away.

1) That's quite a strong claim. If so, then you should be working to prove what you are saying through the peer-review process. 2) Most people do not have the medical / scientific training to evaluate the validity of what you are saying. They do not even know what ApoB is, let alone all the intricacies of biochemistry. So basically you are asking people to just trust you.

Sure. But don't go too far here. On the whole, your prospects for dating are far superior if you are better looking. Your looks will screen out women who feel like you are out of their league. But they will include a lot more than they will exclude. Which is not to say that being good looking doesn't have its challenges. Obviously good looks are not pure upside.

@enchanted I'd splurge for extra travel time and some things I've been wanting to experiment with for my health. Maybe upgrade my apartment or buy a house. Get some new clothes. Otherwise I'd change nothing. Yes, I'd continue to work because I like my work. And I would just give away whatever money I felt I didn't need to maintain my middle class lifestyle.

You keep your mouth shut. Somethings are just not meant to be said. Also, you can find intelligent people to have discussions with. But you have to be selective about who you open up to and when.

This post is basically what therapy looks like, so you're already half-way there. In seriousness, I've done years of traditional talk-therapy and found it tremendously helpful. I still have more than enough ambition. And whatever ambition I may have lost I don't miss at all. But yes, you may have to give up whatever SD Orange fantasies you have about what you want your life to look like. Ultimately this is a good thing. Giving up toxic programming is the whole point of therapy, but of course your mind will resist. I should also mention that I believe I had an exceptional therapist. So your results may vary if your therapist is subpar.

Sounds like you're definitely getting it. "Rolls off" is a good description of how it should feel.