Inequality and Threat

Those that can afford cleaner housing and nutritional diets already live longer than those who can’t. Those who can afford vaccinations live longer than those who live in countries where the already vaccinated would need even more vaccinations to visit. Within a big group that share the same genetic predisposition for lung diseases, it is still the ones that live in densely populated, dirty or damp conditions that are affected by lung conditions more often. General health, cleanliness and medical solutions exist that are not helping everyone equally.

With life lengthening technology there is an undeniable chance of seeing the inequality between rich and poor polarise to extreme. Where the rich will live decades longer and be much healthier throughout their life from riding off the backs (lungs, and kidneys) of the poorer populations. Populations who are used like body farms to cultivate the healthy organs, and the controlled genetic diversity that is needed to sustain long-life. To enhance the systems of genetic modification, lower the risk of viral spread and generally enforce life-preserving environments then physical segregation could make this polarisation even more caricatured. There may have to be super-sterilised, biologically controlled communities that house the people who can afford the enhanced life. It may actually even be domes that gate them off from the filthy, bacteria-ridden masses. Inside the domes it is Logan’s run and outside it is Mad Max. This stretching of the divide between rich and poor will intensify the dangers we face from what is already immediate, global threats.

The first major threat is geo-political, simply how to sustain or manage massive populations of outside-the-domers. Displacement could be caused by the sterile hubs being built in areas where the masses already live. One scenario is a need to use existing infrastructure, this would mean literally pushing millions of people out of current metropolitan areas to make space for the domes. Another scenario is a need to build on areas where the conditions are warm more constantly. This would push people out of areas that are more rural but are also already more affected by poverty, causing a humanitarian crisis level of migration because of a lack of support or any place to go. Also, the increasing effect of climate change (potentially nudged by the emissions of monumental, meticulously mechanically controlled cities) is going to make the current migration of poor populations away from spreading desert even worse. Outside, food and water systems would fail when the controlling groups close themselves off to their own, secured microcosms. What is the long term effect on health from drought, hunger and mass produced, synthetic ‘beef-inspired meat product’?

Next, nuclear war! When ageing and illness is no longer going to kill people, violence becomes one of the only things that can threaten your immortality. Will this make people more friendly and trusting, or even more ready to destroy the only other people with weapons of mass destruction? Bearing in mind, the people with their fingers on the buttons are literally domed off from each other waiting to hear a siren that says they have had their eternal life stolen from the other one.

Another potential threat is Super-Plague. It won’t necessarily be like the plague but it needed a scary name. In response to current hospital sanitation, infectious diseases responded by developing into super bugs. Antibiotic resistance is now putting us in danger of medieval sicknesses returning. What will be the response to doming people off and genetically building them from vacuum-pack, sterilized organs? Even if there isn’t a massive video nasty epidemic, the relative squalor of the people outside the dome will become so dangerous to the rich that they will want to stay as far away as possible. The image each group has of the other will become maliciously negative. A few filthy rich spoilt to the point of immortality, and many just filthy.

And this brings up the final threat, global class conflict. Another massive economic collapse and the divide between those going in the domes and those outside will be set in stone. Will inequality speed up when everyone organising and owning our institutions are hermetically sealed off for biological longevity? Will those outside be happy with this? Will a mass population become sick enough of their situation to see they are literally cordoned off from the good life? Revolution and war has followed sharp rises in inequality in the past.

Britain’s welfare system and NHS is thought of by some as (intentionally or not) key to preventing mass protest among the poor following the widespread deprivation of the recently industrialised societies and wartime need. These socialist stop-gap pacifiers are fading. Private health care is taking the place of the NHS. Maybe it is true that global ‘peace’ is reaching a significantly longer amount more time than any other time in history, there is certainly discontent around the globe about inequality. It is easy to see global threats as more of a worry, especially if the gap between rich and poor is going to stretch even closer to being literally the gap between life and death.

… Although, some say over-population is the biggest threat right now because it causes all the other threats. But maybe living longer (for some, whilst leaving billions out in the dirt) will solve this. If disease doesn’t wipe out a generation then maybe the men, women and children outside will fight among themselves, maybe even over the thankless jobs of maintaining the domes. The majority would die out and then small groups would support the domes and everyone would be living off very little resources for a long while. History has shown time and time again that those without well-rounded and challenging school systems or diverse cultural opportunities can fail to see what the groups in the domes are keeping from them, and so they continue to fight among themselves.

Guest post by Arnie King – Completing Sociology Msc at University of Bristol

CVAC – Breathe and Beware

Right now, all over the world but especially in first world countries there is high demand for new techniques to increase healthspan at the latter stage of human life. When a need becomes somewhat prominent, it is only logical for some people to look for ways of making money from it. This is not necessarily bad, motivated individuals may end up providing a valuable service and making life much easier or better.

One interesting example of an attempt to provide a service for those who would like to live healthy lives for as long as they can, is what is now known as the Cyclic Variations in Adaptive Conditioning machine or CVAC machine. The CVAC treatment involves placing someone inside a special chamber where air pressure will increase and decrease cyclically for about 20 minutes. According to most websites, three 20 minutes sessions per week will eventually cause a series of positive changes in the person’s body that include but are not limited to: stem cell replication, better sleep patterns, lactic acid removal, and stimulation of mitochondrial biogenesis.

The CVAC pods are described as modified versions of hypobaric chambers, meaning, that they not only decrease the air pressure to replicate high altitude conditions but they vary air pressure several times during a single session following a programmed pattern. Many different businesses (spas and other wellness-oriented establishments) have started to advertise these machines and their health benefits. Considering the high cost of these chambers and the unclear amount of sessions needed before obtaining any benefit, we should at least determine if they are what they claim to be.

Any individual with a mild interest in this procedure will probably have several questions about it. The most common ones (what is it?, how does it work?, etc) will probably be answered quickly by reading the description in websites like Tony Robbins and CVAC systems, however, as they read the few paragraphs, they may find something a bit odd, which is, for all their claims, most sites won’t offer clear references about hard research or any kind of reliable data on the effects of CVAC treatments over the human body. This is always a red flag.

If you are a particularly curious individual, you may try to find more reliable information about this procedure, in that case, sooner or later you’ll have to read academic papers related to the topic, but, at that point you’ll find that there is very little reliable information about CVAC in general. CVAC is not really a hot topic within the scientific community right now. The larger amount of official documentation about these machines are patents. Independent studies (especially those with human subjects) are rare.

After trying to obtain more information about CVAC and other related treatments, it will become apparent that either CVAC is not the magnificent procedure that many claim it to be or its health benefits have been severely overlooked by the bulk of the scientific community.

The basic principle of CVAC is not without merit. Some studies have related cyclic variation of air pressure (Cyclic Hypobaric Hypoxia) with improvement of glucose metabolism in middle-age men; increased endurance in athletes and improved β-cell replication in mice. These benefits are not trivial but they are also not what was advertised. At this point, any potential client or patient should be aware of the limited data regarding CVAC therapy before spending their money.

Water – No Need To Overdo It

As part of my research for the Live Forever Manual I thought drinking plenty of water would be an obvious tip, but the evidence wasn’t clear enough that it extended life. So it hasn’t made it as a practical tip in the book, though there are plenty of benefits from keeping well (but not overly) hydrated.

The 8 glasses of water per day rule came from a 1945 recommendation stating that a suitable water allowance for adults is 2.5l/day in most instances. However internet, sports and nutrition media tend to present these quantities as plain water ignoring the fact that most of those fluids are regularly consumed in everyday meals and drinks. One of the probable reasons for hydration becoming a popular issue presented by media and regulatory bodies was the increase in the consumption of caloric beverages, which has contributed to obesity prevalence worldwide. This isn’t an issue in the UK, as one epidemiological study found that total fluid intake was mostly comprised of hot beverages, followed by water.

water - no need to overdo it

Water certainly is an essential component of our diet in so many ways. Firstly, it controls body temperature through fluid loss (sweating). The second essential feature is regulation of kidney function as kidneys use water to filter waste from the bloodstream and excrete them via urine.

Some smaller-scale studies also found that bad hydration may be linked with adverse cardiovascular health as it is involved in regulation of blood volume which is closely associated with blood pressure and heart rate. Blood volume is tightly regulated by the water intake/output ratio, which means that loss of body water will also decrease the blood volume, that way affecting other elements of the cardiovascular cascade.

Although gastrointestinal health is largely affected by bad dietary habits, it is also seen that inadequate water intake is a common culprit in constipation problems. Enhanced water intake is recommended in those problems as it can enhance gastrointestinal transit, however, evidence suggests that people respond differently. That is because some people are in hypo-, hyper and euhydrated state. The only usefulness of this treatment is seen in individuals that are in hypohydrated state not in those that are well hydrated.

Large observational studies found that water deprivation may affect cognitive performance, impair concentration, increase irritability and prolong migraines. The mechanisms underlying the associations between water intake and cognitive performance are not well studied, but there are indicators that mild dehydration may physiologically stress the body and compete with cognitive processes. it has been proposed that mild dehydration acts as a physiological stressor which competes with and draws attention from cognitive processes.

Skin health and moisture is often linked with proper water consumption, and this was confirmed in clinical trials in which 2L of mineral water/day had an impact on these features. Again, the significant results were obtained in the group that was already less hydrated and not in people that were euhydrated.

It is noteworthy to mention that water requirements vary greatly depending on the climate zone (people living in hot climates have higher requirements than those living in colder temperatures), while there is also a big difference between sedentary people and those performing some physical activity. People who have regular exercise in hot conditions and no adequate fluid replacement are at higher risk of hyperthermia, reduced stroke volume and cardiac output, while they also tend to experience decreases in blood pressure and reduced blood flow to muscle.

Yes, reasons for good hydration are plenty, however, a lamp of evidence reports conflicting results, that way suggesting that recommendations and alarms from the media are overreacting. Large population-based studies do not support the notion that we should drink 2 or more litres of water per day. As a matter of fact, one of them concluded quite the opposite – women that drunk higher amounts of water had a lower survival rate than those drinking less. One population-based cohort also failed to confirm that high water intake may lower the risk of kidney dysfunction and cardiovascular diseases in older adults (average age of 70.3), nor in men aged 55-75. But in another large-scale study they found a significant negative association between water intake and the risk of fatal coronary heart disease (which was more pronounced in men), while women with higher intake of fluids other than water were more likely to become ill.

Finally, animal-studies data were pointing out that inadequate urination may prolong the contact time between carcinogens and urothelium thus enhancing the risk of bladder cancer occurrence. One large-scale prospective study supported the notion that men should drink 2.5 l of water daily in order to lower the risk of bladder cancer.

So, according to the science we should definitely pay attention to our hydration status, however, bear in mind that you consume fluids through your regular diet too.