Gyroscopic Investing

I found these interesting videos by David Buettner about "Blue Zones,"  where there are unusual amounts of centenarians.  Maybe we can learn something from these people about how to live to 90 or 100:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4owTPhCs2ZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=39p ... =endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=waG ... =endscreen

Ever the contrarian, how are we so sure we want to live to be 100?

Best of all for mortal beings is never to have been born at all
Nor ever to have set eyes on the bright light of the sun
But, since he is born, a man should make utmost haste through the gates of Death
And then repose, the earth piled into a mound round himself.

Theognis of Megara

Im just saying, maybe this attachment and longing for life is a mistake. Who knows, but why do we act so sure that we do that we run from death? Fear of the unknown....

Funny how we get dragged both into and out of this world kicking and screaming. 

What good is it to live to 120 when everyone you know died by the time you were 89?

doodle wrote: Best of all for mortal beings is never to have been born at all
Nor ever to have set eyes on the bright light of the sun
But, since he is born, a man should make utmost haste through the gates of Death
And then repose, the earth piled into a mound round himself.

Theognis of Megara

I'll bet he wouldn't have liked it very much if someone had snatched the pen out of his hand as he was writing that and then cut off his head.

***

Let me see if I can salvage that piece:

Best of all for mortal beings is to marvel at being alive at all
To experience the miracle of having eyes through which to see the bright light of the sun
And as a man is born in a miracle, and all of his life is a miracle, so too is it a miracle at the moment of Death
Having peeked at the eternal before returning to the earth as it is piled into a mound round himself.

-Mediumtexis of Gyroscopica

smurff wrote: What good is it to live to 120 when everyone you know died by the time you were 89?

You should watch the first video, it might answer your question.  It shows a group of 5 Okinawan women (average age: 102), who have known each other for 97 years.  They're sitting around having tea, as is their usual routine.  Oh, what a horrible life to lead!

Hopefully as we grow older we will meet new, younger people as well sometimes.  Watching the videos, it didn't look like anyone "ran out of friends."  The old (>90 years old) people interviewed looked active, healthy, and happy.

Personally, I'd like to try to live as long as I can.  If I ever decide it was a bad idea, (unlikely), I can just kill myself I guess.  I'm more afraid of dying young and regretting that I didn't do everything to live as long as I could.  I guess I just like life.

doodle wrote: Ever the contrarian, how are we so sure we want to live to be 100?

Best of all for mortal beings is never to have been born at all
Nor ever to have set eyes on the bright light of the sun
But, since he is born, a man should make utmost haste through the gates of Death
And then repose, the earth piled into a mound round himself.

Theognis of Megara

Im just saying, maybe this attachment and longing for life is a mistake. Who knows, but why do we act so sure that we do that we run from death? Fear of the unknown....

Did Theognis of Megara wear black eye shadow and hang around underneath the bleachers at his high school, by any chance?

smurff wrote:What good is it to live to 120 when everyone you know died by the time you were 89?

Of course, a few centuries ago that would have been written:

"What good is it to live to 120 50 when everyone you know died by the time you were 89 35"?

It is all relative.

WildAboutHarry wrote:

smurff wrote:What good is it to live to 120 when everyone you know died by the time you were 89?

Of course, a few centuries ago that would have been written:

"What good is it to live to 120 50 when everyone you know died by the time you were 89 35"?

It is all relative.

It's a good joke. But, it's a myth that adults only lived to 35 a few centuries ago. You're confusing life expectancy with life span.

Wikipedia wrote:Life expectancy vs. life span

Life expectancy is often confused with life span to the point that they are nearly synonyms; when people hear 'life expectancy was 35 years' they often interpret this as meaning that people of that time or place had short life spans. One such example can be seen in the In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was forever."

This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that die before their first year of life as well as people that die from disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.

It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span. Even during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48. Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life expectancy once adulthood was reached.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... _life_span

See also:

Wikipedia.org wrote:Life expectancy variation over time

The following information is derived from Encyclopædia Britannica, 1961. and other sources, some with a questionable accuracy. Unless otherwise stated, it represents estimates of the life expectancies of the population as a whole. In many instances life expectancy varied considerably according to class and gender.
Life expectancy at birth takes account of infant mortality but not pre-natal mortality.




Era
Life Expectancy at Birth (years)
Life Expectancy at Older Age


Upper Paleolithic
33
Based on data from recent hunter-gatherer populations,
it is estimated that at age 15, life expectancy was an
additional 39 years (total age 54).


Classical Rome
28
At age 15, life expectancy an additional 37 years
(total age 52).


Medieval Britain
30
At age 21, life expectancy an additional 43 years
(total age 64).



Life expectancy increases with age as the individual survives the higher mortality rates associated with childhood. For instance, the table above listed life expectancy at birth in Medieval Britain at 30. A male member of the English aristocracy at the same period could expect to live, having survived until the age of 21:

* 1200-1300 C.E.: 43 years (to age 64)
* 1300-1400 C.E.: 34 years (to age 55) (due to the impact of the Black Death)
* 1400-1500 C.E.: 48 years (to age 69)
* 1500-1550 C.E.: 50 years (to age 71).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... _over_time

MediumTex wrote:

doodle wrote: Best of all for mortal beings is never to have been born at all
Nor ever to have set eyes on the bright light of the sun
But, since he is born, a man should make utmost haste through the gates of Death
And then repose, the earth piled into a mound round himself.

Theognis of Megara

I'll bet he wouldn't have liked it very much if someone had snatched the pen out of his hand as he was writing that and then cut off his head.

***

Let me see if I can salvage that piece:

Best of all for mortal beings is to marvel at being alive at all
To experience the miracle of having eyes through which to see the bright light of the sun
And as a man is born in a miracle, and all of his life is a miracle, so too is it a miracle at the moment of Death
Having peeked at the eternal before returning to the earth as it is piled into a mound round himself.

-Mediumtexis of Gyroscopica

Yep, a little less dour.  I like the way this Mediumtexicus of Gyroscopica thinks.

At any rate, I personally believe that death is a term that is already loaded with assumptions that arise because we are conditioned to identify ourselves with the individual ego swimming around in our head. There is another perspective that isnt readily apparent that "you" are really the larger organism. In other words, you are a cell in a larger body. From this perspective the whole notion of life and death are somewhat of an illusion. We dont take it to be a tragedy when millions of the cells within our bodies die because we dont identify ourselves as existing at that level. To the cells, it might be a tragedy, but to the larger organism it is not and it is in fact necessary for life. In the same way, if you are able to identify yourself with the larger organism of the universe and achieve a so called "unity conciousness"...you transcend the illusion of life and death.....that is how you live forever.

One interesting way to look at life is to see it as the method by which we experience ourself. We (the universe) create the sunrise, but it only exists or has meaning when we create an eye through which to view it. Where we have maybe gotten mixed up is that we identify the eye as being seperate and apart from that which it is viewing.

Gumby wrote:It's a good joke. But, it's a myth that adults only lived to 35 a few centuries ago. You're confusing life expectancy with life span.

I know, but I'd rather be clever than correct

Interesting stuff, though.  Thanks.

It's challenging enough already to save enough money to retire at 65, expecting to live to maybe 90...

jan van mourik wrote: It's challenging enough already to save enough money to retire at 65, expecting to live to maybe 90...

We're going to have to rethink the traditional retirement age of 65 going forward. If people are living longer, they should probably also be retiring later since their longer lifespan should mean they are capable of more years of productive work. (If not regular full-time work, at least a transition to part-time work or a less stressful or demanding form of work. See the book Work Less, Live More: The Way to Semi-Retirement for a discussion of this.)

The assumptions underlying the notion that most people need to "retire" a full 20-25 years before they expire probably need to be reexamined.

Tortoise wrote:

jan van mourik wrote: It's challenging enough already to save enough money to retire at 65, expecting to live to maybe 90...

We're going to have to rethink the traditional retirement age of 65 going forward. If people are living longer, they should probably also be retiring later since their longer lifespan should mean they are capable of more years of productive work. (If not regular full-time work, at least a transition to part-time work or a less stressful or demanding form of work. See the book Work Less, Live More: The Way to Semi-Retirement for a discussion of this.)

The assumptions underlying the notion that most people need to "retire" a full 20-25 years before they expire probably need to be reexamined.

People who do work like lumberjacks and coal miners will probably need to be allowed to retire earlier than people who do work like optometrists and accountants under that type of system.