Longevity Medicine?

What Is Longevity Medicine?

"Longevity Medicine encompasses several interconnected approaches that work to promote optimal aging".

It is not exactly a new branch of medicine as in pediatrics, internal medicine, OB/GYN, ophthalmology, etc., at least not yet, but is gaining interest both in the medical field and from among those of a certain age.  Namely, the seniors among us, me included. The quote below explains it best:

"As modern medicine evolves, a new and exciting frontier is taking shape—Longevity Medicine. Unlike traditional healthcare models focused primarily on disease management, longevity medicine aims to extend both lifespan and healthspan—the number of years a person lives in good health, free from chronic disease and disability. This emerging specialty blends cutting-edge science with personalized care to slow biological aging, restore cellular health, and extend one’s quality of life".

From the time of the pharaohs, and perhaps even much earlier, humanity grappled with ways to living longer.  Actually, in the case of the pharaohs, it was about crossing the threshold from one physical existence into another. What was puzzling, of course, was the idea of mummification. If the belief was about continuing into the afterlife of a non-physical soul, why preserve the old body devoid of internal organs and fluids? Then what? A skeptic might  ask. I included this merely as an aside with a trifle connection to what modern longevity is all about.

What is worth noting is that early on in the history of our species twenty years was an average lifespan.  By the time of the pharaohs up to the Roman empire, to be thirty to forty years old was likely terminal. 

Today we are at a place and time where the average lifespan has more than doubled from where it was many centuries ago. It is deemed a natural progression brought on by better healthcare, nutrition and environment. In developed countries, that is, but even in so-called third world nations lifespan has gone up a lot better than what was during the Roman Empire's model of modern life during that era. 

This can lead us to conclude that perhaps  generations from now people could be looking at a lifespan of 150 years?  We can't know what outlook and attitude those accorded that kind of opportunity - to live for that long -  because we can't know what life is going to be like one or two centuries into the future. That is assuming, of course, that humanity will somehow manage itself into a couple or more centuries into the future.  If humans get to that point we can only imagine what it would be like for anyone to be alive and see his or her great, great grandchildren. Imagine being alive for three generations of offspring past one's 75th birthday! 

Recently, a research doctor named Peter Attia who specializes in longevity medicine was featured on "60 Minutes".  "Attia’s philosophy centers on prevention, precision, and personalized health management. His mission is not merely to extend life expectancy, but to enhance the quality of those extra years". 

Apparently, according to Attia,  seventy years of age (+/- ten) is generally considered that point  when things begin to break down physiologically.  In other words if our body were an engine, parts would begin to wear out. Now, while an engine can be overhauled with new parts, only so much is attainable with human physiology.  And just like engines, human bodies are subject to normal wear and tear, abuse, varying responses to stresses or the occasional good fortune of the "luck of the draw" among centenarians. 

There is really not much new to learn  more than what we know already beyond the baselines of genetics, nutrition, environment, sociocultural influences, physical activities including regular exercise, and advances in both preventive and maintenance medicine (including physiological interventions, such as surgeries and skeletal replacements, i.e. knee, hips, etc.) and organ transplants.

Meanwhile, researchers and medical scientists have come up with the Longevity Pyramid.  If you can't read the fine print, they are from the bottom up: Diagnostics; Lifestyle interventions and non-physical aspects; Dietary supplements; Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions; Experimental strategies.

Like I said, there is little that we don't already know, given what little or plenty of reading we've done or what more we can learn in the future.  Meanwhile, those of us of a certain age may not only  learn or benefit from today's advances in medicine but also from a "holistic approach that focuses on treating and preventing disease by addressing many aspects of a person's life, including mental, physical, spiritual, and social health". 

The latter is perhaps something we really need to focus on. I would like to think that it is an option we may need to give more thoughts into.  More on this at the bottom.

It can be daunting according to  Bill Bryson, an international best selling author, who wrote   in, "A Brief History of Nearly Everything": 

"It is a curious feature of our existence that we come from a planet that is very good at promoting life but even better at extinguishing it".

We can extract multiple meanings from that statement - from mass extinction of species to man's proclivity to make war and exact violence against each other that accounts for a large number of extinguished lives. And there are natural calamities too that do the same thing. We can also look at it from that perspective or from the limits imposed by nature or the Creator on our lifespan, for lack of a better way to express it. Setting all of these aside there is actually one thing that is worth thinking about.

You see, all things being equal, if we can for a minute assume that that is possible, doctors, clinicians and psychologists tell us that the power of positive thinking may indeed  have a far greater influence on the quality of life at whatever point, wherever and whenever we are along the way in our life's journey.  However, positive thinking is that catch-all phrase that is both easy and hard to define. Not only that but such a state of mind will vary from person to person.

Let's think about this for a minute. First, speaking of think, the greatest miracle in our existence is that of our ability of self awareness despite this one little fact - that every part of our body, singly and on their own, down to the single atom that makes up our entire physiology, such as our skin, liver, kidney, heart, including even the three pound mass that is encased inside our skull, every bone, etc. - is completely unaware of who we are. Yet, we have this thing called consciousness  that knows and think about who we are and where we are, yet it defies explanation.

Let's add another minute to think.  There again, we think but do we know how we just simply do it? Rene Descartes famously said, "I think therefore I am", perhaps one of the simpler yet intriguing explanations about being self aware. hence proving one's existence to oneself but clearly not defined as something that can be physically investigated.  Yes, surgeons during brain surgery can stimulate parts of the brain to trigger the body to respond but science is still unable to say exactly what consciousness is. 

This leads us back to thinking that leads to the question, "What is positive thinking"? 

I started writing this before Thanksgiving but did not quite finish it in time. It would have been most appropriate, really, had I finished it for the message that I wanted to convey.

I believe that to be grateful for not just one thing but for everything we can think of that is good prepares us to cultivate the plot upon which we maintain, nourish and grow positive thinking.  Expressions of gratitude, vocally spoken to ourselves, to our loved ones and friends, and most of all in our prayers to God, for  all the good things we have, not for what we wish to have, is the best way to draw or invite positive thoughts into our minds.

Perhaps it is not so much our quest for long life but how well we live it and recognizing that the price of the ticket for living longer is to grow old. We, each one of us, were handed an open ticket at the beginning of our journey with options to switch rails along the way, as often as we like, and that the final price for the ticket is not due till the end of our journey, wherever and whenever that may be.  Recognizing the ups and downs along the way is part of life's journey but it is by focusing on the "ups" for the most part that will make us grateful and it is by expressing our gratitude that invites positive thoughts. 

If positive thoughts are indeed part of longevity medicine, then gratitude is the best antidote to negative thoughts. There is no greater opportunity for gratitude than the coming holidays. If there is one thing to remember, gratitude and "speaking it loud" and shared with others will amount to heavy discounts on the final ticket price.  Let's all travel well with this longevity medicine.

P.S. I mentioned earlier about not finishing this before Thanksgiving. It was because I took my wife to the ER on Wednesday, then she was transferred to the Medical Center where we spent Thanksgiving Day. Thankfully, we were back home on Friday. And there was so much to be thankful for. We are  grateful for modern medicine, the doctors, nurses, hospital staff and the prayers and well wishes of loved ones and friends.  The entire experience is for another musing perhaps.

 

New York City Voted; Was It Murder or Suicide?

The second half of the lengthy title comes from part of a quote by Ayn Rand. Let's read the entire quote first and follow with a brief story of her early life that will help explain it. For those not familiar with Ayn Rand, she gained fame for writing the two critically acclaimed books, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged", both later made into movies and a TV series.

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

― Ayn Rand

She was born Alissa Rosenbaum on Feb. 2, 1905, the eldest of three children of Zinovy Rosenbaum, a prosperous pharmacist in St. Petersburg, which was then the capital of Russia.  She was twelve years old going on thirteen when in 1918, after the Russian Revolution, her father's shop, hence his entire business and means of livelihood, was confiscated by the communists who took over running the new government. Through the eyes of a twelve year old girl who witnessed what happened to her family, resentment would have been the least of her emotional responses. Certainly, it must have been more than a temporary psychological trauma to a young girl.

She grew up under communist rule. Later, she studied history at the University of Leningrad, graduated in 1924, but went on to take up cinematography, hoping to become a screenwriter. It was in 1926  upon the invitation of her cousins living in Chicago, when she came to the U.S. She was allowed to leave the communist USSR on the "pretext of gaining expertise that she could apply in the Soviet film industry", according to Britannica.

She changed her name to Ayn Rand (Ayn, pronounced  as in fine). Then her life changed even more when she met the famous film director, Cecil B. de Mille (of Ten Commandments fame) that brought her to Hollywood to fulfill her dream of working in the film industry. She became an American citizen in 1931.  She went on to become a screenwriter which led  her to writing several books including the two mentioned earlier.

Melding her experiences of growing up in communist-ruled Soviet Union, her studies of history and philosophy, and the obvious differences presented by the fortuitous turn of events in her life and those of her relatives in America, became the foundation upon which her whole life's philosophy was based.

Like the thousands upon thousands of immigrants who came to America to seek refuge from the ills and misfortunes they suffered from oppressive regimes of either socialism or communism that prevailed in Eastern Europe and Russia  after the Bolshevik revolution and China after Mao's regime, and the aftermath of two world wars, Ayn Rand saw America as an intensely bright beacon for all people around the world.

As a result of her experiences with communist rule and the framework of socialism that it was based upon, Ayn Rand detested the idea of collectivism as a means to supplant the rights of the individual. Collectivism is essentially the engine that powers socialism. Collecting the wealth and resources of the state through central planning and re-distributing it to society as a means of control effectively erases the idea of individualism.

"The horrors of twentieth-century socialism—of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, and Pol Pot—were the offspring of 1917 (Russian Revolution). Seventy years earlier, Marx and Engels predicted the overthrow of bourgeois rule would require violence and “a dictatorship of the proletariat . . . to weed out remaining capitalist elements.” Lenin conducted this “weeding out” using indiscriminate terror, as Russian socialists before him had done and others would continue to do after his death".

"The late Rudolph Rummel, the demographer of government mass murder, estimated the human toll of twentieth-century socialism to be about 61 million in the Soviet Union, 78 million in China, and roughly 200 million worldwide. These victims perished during state-organized famines, collectivization, cultural revolutions, purges, campaigns against “unearned” income, and other devilish experiments in social engineering".

"In its monstrosity, this terror is unrivaled in the course of human history".

Lenin’s coup on November 7, 1917, the day Kerensky’s provisional government fell to Bolshevik forces, opened a new stage in human history: a regime of public slavery. Collectivist economic planning led to coercion, violence, and mass murder. Marx and Engels had defined socialism as “the abolition of private property. The most fundamental component of private property, self-ownership, was abolished first".

Ayn Rand saw how communism was responsible for the death of millions. She witnessed later in life the pivot to socialism where the same principle of communism was sold to the electorate in democratic systems through legitimate elections.  Thus, "It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

Socialism has no regard for individualism; neither for individual achievement that will put that person in a position of personal wealth by working harder.  Socialism is a world where people like Carnegie, Ford and Rockefeller, Bill Gates and Elon Musk, Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos will not and cannot exist.  These men are examples of the few who in the beginning dreamt as individuals. They were in fact minorities, so to speak, in terms of their dreams and aspirations.  Socialism does not recognize the plight of the individual and neither their rights. Society is socialism's ultimate minority and individualism a non-entity.

Ayn Rand came up with and founded the idea of Objectivism - "the philosophy of rational individualism". 

Those dreamers all had and still have in them the quest to excel in whatever  ambitions that percolated personally to achieved goals far beyond expectations of many others.  Ayn Rand saw that  the country that adopted her provided the counter argument against communism where by consent of its people adapted capitalism. Thus capitalism became the engine that moved the train of industrialization. And in her eyes the locomotive moved with very little interference from the government.

She supported "Laissez-faire", that in French means "let it be", which called for as little intervention from the government in the conduct of business and commerce, "suggesting that economies thrive best when left alone".  She saw growing up what it was like when the government had its hands and signature in commerce and industry.

Capitalism which embraces the free market and open competition was and still is responsible for innovations, provides fuel for the engine that powers growth and development, along with promoting a responsive business environment for a better economic order. For two hundred fifty years capitalism had worked in this country.

So, what has this all got to do with the New York City election? And the one in Seattle? Both mayoral candidates who won are self described democratic socialists. What is a democratic socialist?  A socialist brought to the seat of government through a legitimate democratic process.  But if we listen carefully they want to change the very same system that gave them the opportunity to be elected.

There are copious amounts of quotes from these socialists that provide insights into their political and social philosophies thru their speeches and responses to questions from the media.

Asked directly whether billionaires should have a right to exist, Mamdani, the new mayor-elect in New York, who identifies himself as a democratic socialist, told NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” “I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality, and ultimately, what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country.”

Both mayor-elects (New York and Seattle) and several others who aspire for election in other states/cities have a common agenda - change the system that had worked for two hundred years with something called socialism, as if this is a new thing.  Socialism has never worked anywhere it was tried and it will still not work even if dressed with a different set of clothing. It has not worked in the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela and everywhere it was implemented because it stifles individuals from innovating and striving for excellence.

Ayn Rand believes that:

"Objectivism holds that there is no greater moral goal than achieving one's happiness. But one cannot achieve happiness by wish or whim. It requires rational respect for the facts of reality, including the facts about our human nature and needs. It requires living by objective principles, including moral integrity and respect for the rights of others. Politically, Objectivists advocate laissez-faire capitalism".

"Objectivism is benevolent, holding that the universe is open to human achievement and happiness and that each person has within him the ability to live a rich, fulfilling, independent life."

Let's hear from another notable lady from recent history, Margaret Thatcher:

"In her famous quote, Margaret Thatcher succinctly captures the essence of socialism, highlighting a fundamental flaw in its economic structure. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." These words capture the essence of an economically unsustainable system, where the reliance on redistributing wealth can lead to an inevitable depletion of resources. Thatcher's statement serves as a cautionary reminder that without a balanced approach to economic policies, societies may face severe consequences. The meaning behind Thatcher's quote is straightforward. Socialism, as an economic and political ideology, aims to create a more equitable society by redistributing wealth and resources. However, this approach neglects one crucial aspect: somebody has to generate the wealth in the first place. While sharing wealth and providing equal opportunities are admirable goals, they are dependent upon the investment, entrepreneurship, and innovation that come from individuals and businesses.

We hear it from these new politicians (new in the U.S., anyway) that there is a need to "tax the rich" in this country to achieve a proper distribution of wealth in the ultimate noble goal towards equity. 

Perhaps, the silver lining, if there is going to be one, is that New York City and Seattle will become shining examples to showcase once again the folly and ultimate failure of socialism. 

On the other hand, we might see dark clouds gathering  if for some reason the unthinkable does happen. That is a scenario I do not wish for this great land which I described four years ago in, 

"2050: The Ebb of the Tragic Trajectory of a Once Powerful Nation"

Link:  https://abreloth.blogspot.com/2021/10/2050-ebb-of-tragic-trajectory-of-once.html