brip blap - Latest Comments in 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Chris — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:35:51 -0000

I remember an article on that old French gal who lived to 112 or something who quit smoking at EIGHTY YEARS OLD and whose favorite foods were fried chicken and chocolate.. Your list certainly can't hurt, but I say the majority of it is in the genes, I'm afraid.

BTW, I am a first time reader and poster. I'm hooked, great blog!

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

monicaw — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:01:35 -0000

Insightful and thoughtful, I need to remember that in my own communications. thank you for making me think.

never dwell on the past.
stay fully engaged in the present.
am grateful

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

deepali — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:21:39 -0000

This is a really good article! Thanks for sharing this and I will be including a reference in an article that I am writing for another website that I own.

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Steve — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:46:38 -0000

Well, maybe not immortality - but at least a slight chance to improve the odds of living a bit longer :)

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

komodo dragon — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:21:07 -0000

well... someone sure knows the secret to immortality

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Email — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:48:38 -0000

Insightful and thoughtful, I need to remember that in my own communications. thank you for making me think.

never dwell on the past.
stay fully engaged in the present.
am grateful

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

FourPillars — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:20:46 -0000

Wow, great comment.

I'm not a huge news reader but I always thought the "news" was a worthy thing to watch on tv. After reading this comment, I will have to rethink that idea.

Mike

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

bripblap — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:58:52 -0000

It did seem harsh but that's OK, I understand. I can't see that a label like 'hippie' would ever be an honor, but if it was meant to be, thanks. While I might admire some of the (stereotypical) hippie qualities like peace, love, understanding, etc. I also had a lot of problems with their ideas (again, stereotypically) about drug use and the "drop out" mentality, which I think was destructive and childish. I am not a hippie by a long shot, in appearance, actions or beliefs.

Let's define news, though. First: I say something is news if it in some way provides me with information that affects my life. Where I draw the line is arbitrary. Troubles in Pakistan may someday cause me trouble due to their possession of nuclear weapons. Fair enough. Will knowing about riots and so on in Pakistan now cause me to act differently? No. Does it help my career? My family? My relationships with others? No, no, no.

Second: the US media does not actually give us "reporting of events". They SELL us news. NBC or CNN or FOX receive money for an entertainment program. Some people enjoy the part of the entertainment program that tells them about Paris Hilton, or a triple murder, or Pakistan riots. But each of those networks are using those stories to entice viewers to watch advertising. Same with papers, or online news. There is no not-for-profit news. I also particularly pick on the TV news and yes, I dismiss it both on the basis of style AND content.

Third: the perception of the entire US media towards external events is flawed. If you saw the runup to the Iraq War it is clear that our media is unable to accurately determine the truth of events. They do not investigate. They report others' assertions. Watch any news program for 30 minutes and at least once I guarantee you'll see a reporter ask another reporter his OPINION of an event. That is not news.

I love reading history. History is also seen through the eyes of the victors and so on, but there is some sort of consensus on events after the passage of time that you can't get AS events occur. I can even start to agree that there is simply some benefit to being educated about the history of mankind in a general sense. I should know who Caesar is, who Robespierre was, who Hermann Goering was, I guess.

I simply don't think there is much value in learning too much that is not relevant to my daily existence unless I derive some other value from it. I have a lot to keep up with, as we all do. I do not find that knowing Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize is useful information for ME. I'm terribly glad, I think he represents what is best about America and I wish he was our president today. It might even just make me happier to know. Fine. But knowing he won an Oscar or a Nobel doesn't really enlighten me, or help me. Reading his book and watching his movie did. Reading about the prizes he won for them didn't. And hearing about a triple murder in San Diego or Dallas or the Bronx certainly helps me in no way, shape or form.

Out of all of this, too, I'm just skipping past the fact that 90% of the news is ridiculous entertainment junk. Britney blah blah blah.

My background is this: I used to be a news junkie. All day every day I read about death, stupid politics, the hopeless lives of so many of the world's people and the sex lives of celebrities. I filled my head up with tension and worthless knowledge. Then one day, after reading a particularly horrible series of news stories about abused and murdered and mutilated children in the Sudan and in the US, I decided enough was enough. That time I spent reading about abused children? Better spent working to make more money and give it to causes I support like children.org and the Russian Children's Welfare Society. The time spent on politics? Pointless - if you think anything these politicians say will come to fruition, go read about Bush's compassionate conservatism. Go read about Clinton's promises in 1992. There is nothing there. Time spent on celebrity news? Life wasted.

And as far as the question "who am I to decide what learning is?" I cannot learn for you, or for my wife or my family or my friends. I can only learn for myself. For others I can teach, or give opinions, but I cannot learn for them. So who am I to decide what learning is? Since I am the only person I can learn FOR, I am the ONLY person who can decide what learning is for me. I turn around and explain my position, but whether you accept it as knowledge for yourself is up to you, just the same as my decision to watch the news or not was mine.

And really, if the tone of this seems overly angry it's not meant to be, but I do feel it strongly. None of this, finally, is original thinking. Thoreau said it best:"If we read of one man robbed, or murdered, or killed by accident, or one house burned, or one vessel wrecked, or one steamboat blown up, or one cow run over on the Western Railroad, or one mad dog killed, or one lot of grasshoppers in the winter, we never need read of another.... All news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea." Thoreau had a strong opinion, and while I'm not THAT aggressively angry about it, he has a point.

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Email — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:22:17 -0000

Sorry the comment, it may have been too harsh. I forgot a smilly.

I recieve news from friends, that I read, on a daily basis. I was pleased to read that Al Gore won the nobel peace prize.

I have a long rant about News and TV about how people dismiss the medium independant of content as a choice of style.

I enjoy the news and tv, and know many who don't. I feel that it is just too simple to find elements of socity that you find distasteful and shoot the messenger.

Sorry again for the hippie comment. Most people I know that live by the code you posted would consider it an honor.

---

Again though, the human experinace is vast ...
Who are you to decide what learning is? how did you learn to not read the news?

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Brip Blap — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:09:55 -0000

@Email: from CNN today - these are the "top headlines":

Student: Clinton camp fed me question
Police kill unarmed man holding brush
Surgeon claims he operated on Kanye's mom
Blacks half of AIDS cases, 1% of AIDS quilt
Ticker: Terrorist attack on mall portrayed in ad
Governor calls on higher power for rain
Man tortured 10 months wants apology
WPLG: Man fleeing police killed by alligator
Blast rips off man's fingers at ball game
Chlamydia cases sets STD record
Suspect tries to flush gun down cell toilet
Time: Alicia Keys gets phished
How to keep sane on your holiday visit
Casino implodes in way-cool glitzy fashion

Tell me how many of those are "learning new things." You call it news, I call it a waste of time. It doesn't make me a hippie by any stretch of the imagination to dismiss news stories about flushing guns down toilets or casino fashions, does it?

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Email — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:40:40 -0000

never read the news.
never stop learning new things.
enjoy reading.

Why do hippies hate the news? But promote what it is?

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

bripblap — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:53:03 -0000

Hank, fecundity - all good points, and yes, I don't think I can do much about the Y chromosome at this point :)

Hank - way back in #7 I pointed out that I'm not 100% of the way there on all of these. I do watch TV from time to time, although I'm substantially better than I was a year ago. I used to come home and turn it on and leave it going all evening. Now I mostly watch movies, and I've been forcing myself to cut back on the blast-em-up movies that are (honestly) my favorites. I haven't had more than 3 or 4 sodas in the last 3 years, though (once every few months I may have a Sprite, but it usually disgusts me right after I drink it).

Fecundity - you're right, there are no guarantees. The real purpose of the list is to highlight - as you said - behaviors that PROBABLY would contribute to an increase in longevity. I just wanted to get people talking, and I guess I did that, at least!

Chance and genetics will play a big part in my longevity. I don't deny that at all. But someone who engages in healthy behavior has a better shot at a long life. No guarantee, but a slight edge, maybe. Nothing can help versus fate, though. I've seen two middle-aged, relatively healthy people in the last year go into the doctor and come out with a diagnosis of terminal cancer (both died within weeks). And I have seen relatives who smoked, drank and never broke a sweat for 20 years live to be mid-80s.

But who knows? I generally feel better when I do most of the things in that list, so why not keep at it? Most of it's not for everyone but it would be impossible to write a list that would fit everyone's expectations AND needs. Did my best :)

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

fecundity — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:08:10 -0000

Yikes! That's quite the trail of comments.

The way I see this is that brip blap is going with things that are statistically correlated with living longer (guns in the house, wearing a seatbelt), things that give him peace of mind (being kind to the elderly, meditating, religious resolution, enjoying reading) and things that science has shown to be good for your health (not smoking, going easy on the red meat and alcohol, cutting back on salt).

Obviously none of these things guarantee a long life, but each will improve the quality if not the quantity of his life.

Do I agree with all of his points? No. I like to read the news from time to time, I like to watch TV, I hate that I've had to give up caffeine during my pregnancy (not to mention my beloved red wine and brie ), and I won't be becoming an agnostic anytime soon. But if all of these things work for him, then he's statistically increased his odds of a long and happy life.

If you're like Hank and you're opening up a real discussion of various points of view of these items, great. I'm all for exchanging knowledge, values and considered opinions. But if you just dislike some of the points here, come up with your own list. I'll be pondering mine over the next few days.

Oh, and as a pharmaceutical worker I have to say: alcohol is not more dangerous than heroin. Alcohol is an addictive substance, and has caused many problems for many people. However it is less addictive than heroin (as in a far smaller percentage of people who use alcohol will get hooked then people who use heroin), has caused less crime (except during prohibition) than heroin, and is less likely to kill you simply because it's regulated by the government. Alcohol manufacturers must follow safety standards and labelling requirements or they have their ability to sell their product revoked. The same can't be said for heroin, pot, cocaine or any illegal substance.

Unfortunately for him, poor Brip brap is unable to be one thing that is highly correlated with exceptionally long life: being female. Enjoy it while it lasts, girls. The advantage is fading fast.

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Hank — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:21:41 -0000

For the record, I quit soda and TV quite a while ago (2 years), but I still watch TV shows from time to time like I watch movies from time to time - to what degree did you quit TV since there are many different degrees of this, mine being one of the most lax?

I also eat meat, but enjoy a fairly fibrous diet. None of my relatives that I know of have lived for over 100 years, but most made it well into their 80's even if they smoked. I don't smoke, drink beer moderately, but avoid hard alcohol (I'm not in college anymore). I am not yet married, and do not have kids.

It would be interesting to have a website dedicated to tracking people's lifestyle anonymously (habits adn practices like you listed) that measured their lifespan. You'd have to have the cooperation of governments to verify time and cause of death for their profiles. That would be really handy (and morbid). I keep thinking back to this picture, and wonder if Facebook will ever integrate this sort of thing into their application:

http://www.creativebinge.co.uk/blog/wp-content/...

Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion. I may have to subscribe to this blog.

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

ryan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:25:23 -0000

i thought i wrote that list for a minute. there are only a handful of things on there that i do not incorporate into my life.

i do not have kids, am not married, do not meditate or give to charity. other than that, i am with you, except i own a gun.

i commend you on your diet, your lack of t.v., etc. i cetainly do feel more healthy all of the time than when i was eating meat, drinking pop, smoking, etc.

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

bripblap — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 07:06:02 -0000

@Mrs. Micah, @Guinness416: Some of the reactions are a little surprising, to say the least. I know that most people have strong feelings about being told what to do, though. I certainly wrote the article expressing an extremely "certain" point of view, which probably sets people off a bit. I'm not by any means a monk or a joyless person, but maybe that's the way it comes off. I just think, having lived a very unhealthy lifestyle in the 90s that I'd rather be healthy. My most fun day when I was 320+ pounds, drinking, working like a maniac and sick all the time was not nearly as much fun as an average day at 200 pounds, eating healthy and feeling relaxed.

To everyone in general who's read this far I would just say that this list is my opinion. If you feel a life without TV isn't a life worth living, this isn't the article for you...

If anyone has a good counterargument (like #11 joe about accidents or #12/#19 Hank about gun safety), hey, I am willing to admit that some of the points are open to debate.

So at the risk of sounding a bit plaintive, the purpose of the list is just to provide some food for thought. If you take it as a personal insult to your lifestyle, sorry!

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

bripblap — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:54:52 -0000

@J: if that's what was meant - that advocating alcohol while putting down drugs is hypocritical - fine. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, but I would argue that there have been enough studies showing moderate alcohol consumption's health benefits that (a) if you are not prone to alcoholism and (b) if you really do moderately drink and not binge drink, then it's different than illegal narcotics. A primary difference between alcohol and heroin is legality, and also the lack of quality control in an illegal product.

I have no doubt that alcohol is an extremely dangerous drug for many, many people and from that point of view the wisest thing might be to avoid it altogether if you have the least doubt that you can enjoy it in moderation only. I would still not advocate any illegal drugs, simply because I'm not going to advocate anything illegal. Whether all of them SHOULD be illegal is a debate for a different kind of blog :)

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

shadox — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 03:51:27 -0000

Hey, you know what they say, you may not live longer than other people but it will sure FEEL that way... ;-)

Where's the beef?!

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:30:19 -0000

I think the commenter meant to call you out on the fact that you say avoid drugs but you say alcohol is ok in moderation. Alcohol is not only a drug but one of the most dangerous drugs there is. Don't forget that although you can't die from Heroin withdrawal (a REAL drug by most peoples standards) you can indeed die from alcohol withdrawal. Don't let the worst drug (alcohol) off the hook)

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Mrs. Micah — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:20:11 -0000

I wonder why people react so vehemently to points in this? Maybe because they don't want to think about how some behaviors may be shortening their lives?

We're all going to die someday. I think this list has lots of good points on how to have a healthier, happier life. Will I do it all? No, but I also know that I may not be optimizing my lifespan and I accept that.

I'd add not being born in DE--chemical swamp with high cancer rates. *sigh* Can't help that one now.

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Hank — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:57:54 -0000

I have to admit that guns are not the only answer to home defense - I'm glad you are taking other precautions as necessary. I'm just worried about the other 80% of people out there (completely made up statistic) that do not take any precaution whatsoever to protect their homes. Self defense is becoming less and less of a popular concern in today's US society, and it's enabling home intrusions to be child's play. I wasn't commenting to start an argument as much as to understand your stance on that issue. I also live in a place where gun ownership is extremely difficult, yet I managed to get a gun for my home. I do not have children, and perhaps I'll do the same as my father did when I do (he sold his .45 when I was 3, but we had rifles and shotguns). In certain states, they require you to attempt to hide in a "panic room", which is determined to be the safest place in the home, if you discover an intruder in your home. I am vehemently against this policy - if someone is in my home stealing my possessions, I deserve to be able to take action based on my 2nd and 4th amendment rights.

Good article though - don't let the Jesus freaks get to you :).

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

ff1959 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:31:00 -0000

complete new-wave claptrap. who wants to live that long?

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

guinness416 — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:33:57 -0000

Something of an ... odd ... series of comments (I'm getting notified, so I got the one you hopefully deleted too). Where'd this post get linked?

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

Joey — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:15:28 -0000

"In the end, it's not going to matter how many breaths you took, but how many moments took your breath away." - Shing Xiong

Re: 67 ways to outlive 106 billion people

chris — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:10:24 -0000

yeah, but what the hell good is it to live 200 years, if you have to act like that?

hunter s thompson is laughing his ass of at you, somewhere