http://nutritionfacts.org/video/america ... ker-lives/
At some point earning becomes about saving money to perpetuate a miserable existence in old age.
All the more reason to retire early and live?
Longer Life But Shorter Useful Life, ERE Implications?
It's an important point to keep in mind. One of the ERE blogroll writers makes the same observation; that the best retirement plan is to retire sooner:
http://www.frugal-retirement-living.com ... -plan.html
http://www.frugal-retirement-living.com ... -plan.html
Implications for ERE?
The discussed facts of loosing functions and getting long during diseases are only to counter by eating well and doing sports.
When I sometimes read in these Threads the cutting on food spending I keep my fingers crossed. All (aspiring) ere'rers should never forget that getting the right nutrition every day is the most best investment you can ever do. Never underspend on right food. And: study about food and nutrition!
So thanks Ego for mentioning it.
The discussed facts of loosing functions and getting long during diseases are only to counter by eating well and doing sports.
When I sometimes read in these Threads the cutting on food spending I keep my fingers crossed. All (aspiring) ere'rers should never forget that getting the right nutrition every day is the most best investment you can ever do. Never underspend on right food. And: study about food and nutrition!
So thanks Ego for mentioning it.
Great video! I always use similar facts when combating the "We're living longer than ever before [therefore, we're healthier than ever before]!" Take out war, other work related fatalities, basic sanitation that didn't exist and the life expectancy of your average ADULT (not child) is similar now to what it was 100 years ago... Not to mention a 70 year old back then could probably walk, run, work in the field. Now most are lucky to be walking.
I think those of us (most here, IMO) that can/will avoid the worst pitfalls of modern US life will be mostly immune to this.
I think those of us (most here, IMO) that can/will avoid the worst pitfalls of modern US life will be mostly immune to this.
Turn it around then. Have a longer useful life and a shorter "demise." The best way I have heard thus far is to eat better, unprocessed foods, vegetable based foods, and to get exercise, sunshine, etc. Obviously, no one will live forever, and we should not expect to live beyond the normal lifespan of a human (nor should everyone expect to be Shakespeare, or Michelangelo).
I do not understand why everyone thinks that these Methusela-long ages are what is "normal." 100, 90, 80 even. Those are long lives. The normal lifespan of a male in the U.S. is 75.6 years old, for a female it is 80.8.
As a female, I would rather be healthy, exercising and so on till I was 79 years old and perhaps be sick only at the last year. To have a debilitating disease at the age of 50 and have to suffer and struggle through millions of dollars worth of medical treatments would not be something I would want to do. It is not the money. I am living with a man who has cancer now, and is in his "end stage." It is horrible. He is a living skeleton, and unable to do anything, and it has been this way for 4 years now.
This man, (I am his caretaker) is 71. That is only 4.6 years less than the "average" lifespan of a typical male, and he, like a lot of people have this "myth" that life should last for 80 or 90 years. It is though the "outliers" on the statistical bell curve are the "goal." The goal is to be the "exception."
So-- why can't people be happy (or even grateful) to be "average" and have an "average" life span?
I'll admit, dying when you are 50 is sad, but goodness, you should have understood, that the human animal does not live as long as a turtle.
Old age does not need to be "miserable" either. Mentally, when you are in your 50's or so, something clicks on. You are no longer driven by hormones or ambition (or raising children etc). You actually can get a lot done, creatively, and mentally. It is the best time of your life.
I do not understand why everyone thinks that these Methusela-long ages are what is "normal." 100, 90, 80 even. Those are long lives. The normal lifespan of a male in the U.S. is 75.6 years old, for a female it is 80.8.
As a female, I would rather be healthy, exercising and so on till I was 79 years old and perhaps be sick only at the last year. To have a debilitating disease at the age of 50 and have to suffer and struggle through millions of dollars worth of medical treatments would not be something I would want to do. It is not the money. I am living with a man who has cancer now, and is in his "end stage." It is horrible. He is a living skeleton, and unable to do anything, and it has been this way for 4 years now.
This man, (I am his caretaker) is 71. That is only 4.6 years less than the "average" lifespan of a typical male, and he, like a lot of people have this "myth" that life should last for 80 or 90 years. It is though the "outliers" on the statistical bell curve are the "goal." The goal is to be the "exception."
So-- why can't people be happy (or even grateful) to be "average" and have an "average" life span?
I'll admit, dying when you are 50 is sad, but goodness, you should have understood, that the human animal does not live as long as a turtle.
Old age does not need to be "miserable" either. Mentally, when you are in your 50's or so, something clicks on. You are no longer driven by hormones or ambition (or raising children etc). You actually can get a lot done, creatively, and mentally. It is the best time of your life.
Dezdura, I too have been prompted to think about this lately because we - like you - are surrounded by those nearing the end of their lives. We're managing a small senior apartment complex. It is absolutely fascinating. Probably the most interesting experience we've had in a long time.
Most interesting is how people lose the ability to deal with discomfort or change of any kind. Even slight changes - things most of us would barely notice - cause real, visible anxiety.
I often find myself tempted to buffer these moments for them but I've got to restrain myself... because all I'd be doing is making them more helpless.
Most interesting is how people lose the ability to deal with discomfort or change of any kind. Even slight changes - things most of us would barely notice - cause real, visible anxiety.
I often find myself tempted to buffer these moments for them but I've got to restrain myself... because all I'd be doing is making them more helpless.
The age number is so irrelevant. I've met old 25 year olds and young 85 year olds... My father is over 70 and lives the exact life I want to. Still takes vigorous trips, daily bike rides, long walks, so on.
Dying has never been, and was never supposed to be, a process that took decades. Only in America, where you drive for 10 minutes looking for a parking space 10 meters closer. Never exposing yourself to potential injury (or exercise) by using your body.
I think if you live a fairly traditional lifestyle (daily labor, exercise, some risk/athletic activity) you will most likely die from an event. And not have to endure decades of dying that has become so common.
Dying has never been, and was never supposed to be, a process that took decades. Only in America, where you drive for 10 minutes looking for a parking space 10 meters closer. Never exposing yourself to potential injury (or exercise) by using your body.
I think if you live a fairly traditional lifestyle (daily labor, exercise, some risk/athletic activity) you will most likely die from an event. And not have to endure decades of dying that has become so common.
-
aptruncata
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:14 pm
I think it comes down to quality over quantity.
If one is to be diagnosed with a terminal illness at 60 and lives 12 years bedridden the actual "life" of that person stopped somewhere near 60. Which is the major reason why me and my wife are strict vegie mongers that subside on fruits, grains, legumes and avoid all processed food altogether. We exercise regularly, enjoy the outdoors.
We figured what good is planning an ERE if you're not around to reap the benefits. I think when considering ERE, health/investment in health is equally, if not more important part of your planning.
If one is to be diagnosed with a terminal illness at 60 and lives 12 years bedridden the actual "life" of that person stopped somewhere near 60. Which is the major reason why me and my wife are strict vegie mongers that subside on fruits, grains, legumes and avoid all processed food altogether. We exercise regularly, enjoy the outdoors.
We figured what good is planning an ERE if you're not around to reap the benefits. I think when considering ERE, health/investment in health is equally, if not more important part of your planning.
Two things,
"Own your time" is great and I'm going to start to use it.
I hate to break it to many 20 and 30 somethings but even if you eat organic veggies and diligently exercise you are still open to contracting a disease such as cancer, lung disease, Type I diabetes (in your twenties), etc., etc.
djc "50 something"
"Own your time" is great and I'm going to start to use it.
I hate to break it to many 20 and 30 somethings but even if you eat organic veggies and diligently exercise you are still open to contracting a disease such as cancer, lung disease, Type I diabetes (in your twenties), etc., etc.
djc "50 something"
-
aptruncata
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:14 pm
unfortunately time is not something we can own but it does sound great. Whether we have owned, spent, wasted, lost or saved time is all a matter of perspective.
individual hereditary predisposition to an illness is something that is genetic and cannot be controlled but it's development/maintenance is in your hands.
individual hereditary predisposition to an illness is something that is genetic and cannot be controlled but it's development/maintenance is in your hands.
Re: Longer Life But Shorter Useful Life, ERE Implications?
Tough problem heheh.
-
guitarplayer
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2020 6:43 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Longer Life But Shorter Useful Life, ERE Implications?
One alternative is to cultivate some interests that don't require being physically fit. Reading and meditation are options. Even someone with locked-in syndrome can practice meditation
Re: Longer Life But Shorter Useful Life, ERE Implications?
Beware of Averages!!! and also in matching samples between time periods with underlying changes in the population. There are many stats issues with this study, the most basic is the population in 1998 and 2006 might be fundamentally different in many characteristics. If one just used random samples from the two periods, the results will be meaningless. This is similar to any study that compared US healthcare to any Scandanavian country, the populations are not similar. If one were to compare a college educated person from European descent in the US vs the same person in Scandanavia, the health outcomes would not be significantly different. When a random sample is selected in both populations, the study measures the differences in populations and not healthcare.
The results could be entirely explained by two factors, Diabetes and Opioid use. The advice is to not get morbidly obese and don't take opioids, problem solved.
Averages= in two samples of 10 people, if one person is morbidly obese and has diabetes, this will result in a negative health outcome on average for the entire population, despite the other 9 people in the later study being identical to the 10 in the previous study. This is a problem with using any average in any study as one outlier can completely influence the results. Diabetes rates in the US are much higher than 10% in many communities and why this study is not reliable.
The results could be entirely explained by two factors, Diabetes and Opioid use. The advice is to not get morbidly obese and don't take opioids, problem solved.
Averages= in two samples of 10 people, if one person is morbidly obese and has diabetes, this will result in a negative health outcome on average for the entire population, despite the other 9 people in the later study being identical to the 10 in the previous study. This is a problem with using any average in any study as one outlier can completely influence the results. Diabetes rates in the US are much higher than 10% in many communities and why this study is not reliable.
Re:
Yep, genetics play a HUGE roll in this estimate, especially after the age of 55. Being "too healthy" also sets one up for being unable to deal with hazards which occur in life.djc wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:53 amTwo things,
"Own your time" is great and I'm going to start to use it.
I hate to break it to many 20 and 30 somethings but even if you eat organic veggies and diligently exercise you are still open to contracting a disease such as cancer, lung disease, Type I diabetes (in your twenties), etc., etc.
djc "50 something"