• 0 Posts
  • 64 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 17th, 2023
  • ns1@feddit.uktoscience@lemmy.world•100 experts were unable to agree on whether aging is an illness, or when it beginsEnglish
    2·
    1 month ago

    Yes, I’ve heard similar things before and that’s probably the closest thing to a true explanation. It’s a purely genetic line of reasoning which raises a lot of questions though: What’s the biological clock that controls the timing of when genes activate? Which/how many genes are responsible for aging and does everyone have all of them? Could animals be selectively bred for longevity indefinitely? Some of these questions might have partial answers already but I don’t know them.

    Thanks for the paper, it’s interesting and I definitely couldn’t follow the whole thing. It says at one point that the findings are consistent with the theory that organisms age to make way for their offspring. I’ve heard of the slightly different version where it’s just random genes that don’t have any benefit but the downside isn’t bad enough for them to be selected against.

  • ns1@feddit.uktoscience@lemmy.world•100 experts were unable to agree on whether aging is an illness, or when it beginsEnglish
    171·
    1 month ago

    It’s funny how everyone tends to assume that there is a very obvious and well-known reason why we age, and people are usually shocked to find out that, like the article demonstrates, science kind of doesn’t really know. We know a lot of the mechanisms of course and I’m sure any doctors here can explain them, but it’s not like there’s one simple and universal explanation.

    Edit: some commenters have pointed out that aging is very well studied so I’m crossing out the part that could be misleading and will add only: it’s complicated

  • ns1@feddit.uktoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•How could we go about making a jurisdiction where advertising is illegal?English
    3·
    2 months ago

    I find this idea very interesting even if it might seem kind of wacky and unrealistic in our current world.

    I can see it being possible to make a somewhat-convincing “moral” case for banning advertising. The argument would go that advertising is manipulating the consumer, preventing them from making an unbiased decision. It provides an unfair advantage over the competition, since a company that spends on advertising can get more sales without improving their product or lowering prices. And it creates an environment where the competition has to respond with advertising of their own, with the end result being large advertising budgets when those resources could be used to improve the company’s products or services. The case would be much weaker when it comes to small businesses, charity fundraising, political adverts and government campaigns. To be clear this is a thought experiment, no criticism of anyone involved in advertising in real life.

    You can make a distinction between paid and unpaid advertising, for example a community noticeboard or directory where businesses can post for free is more acceptable because they’re not gaining any unfair visibility over competitors, and consumers would only go there when they’re looking for something. Like a few other people have said it would be essential to propose alternative ways that consumers can discover new products. Sadly there are probably people whose only source of information is advertising and you need to somehow give them a way to stay informed.

    More realistically, limitations on advertising are either going to take the form of making specific places ad-free like you mention, or restricting advertising of certain products, kind of like how many places already ban adverts for things like gambling, tobacco, alcohol or adverts targeting children. I could easily see this being extended to anything remotely controversial, like social media or fast food.