Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[Richy_T]

People will starve to death that is what happens if people become immortal and the cost of it is affordable.

Maybe. But it is a mechanism with a lot of moving parts so that is by no means certain. Just think of how much has been lost by our top minds through the centuries becoming old, and infirm and then dying. Though there's moving parts to that too.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[AlcoHoDL]

I really hope I am. But, what if the fact that we live longer now, has triggered cancer as nature's mechanism of counteracting the longer life expectancies we have now achieved?

In other words, what if we are not supposed to live longer than nature intended (and took millions of years to evolve)?

Just a thought (not based on any evidence)...

Nothing has triggered cancer as that mechanism. It was always there, it was just rarely experienced because there were so many other awesome and unpleasant ways to die.

The idea of "supposed" suggests some kind of mechanism for that which is not in evidence. Though various religions suggest or state things but if you want to go that way, you're typically eliminating evolution from the equation anyway.

As d_eddie mentions, there has been no evolutionary pressure against it. It typically occurs after reproduction age for most individuals. For the few it doesn't, that's just not enough pressure vs the cost to push things that way.

Interesting to note that sharks don't get cancer. There may be something interesting there. Worth knowing that in evolutionary terms, they are very old organisms.

I saw this video recently which offers some interesting possibilities in where things may go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5U8M2JtAHk

Cancer bit begins at 19:23 though the whole video is worth the watch (frog mutilation warning).

Several science fiction stories explore what happens if humans become immortal. Some suggest that what eventually gets us is boredom or death by misadventure.

I haven't watched the video yet, will do soon. This is just a "quick" reply.

What I'm trying to say is that, in my view, evolution, over millions of years, has arrived at an equilibrium for the life expectancy of humans (and all other living beings). The technological and medical advances of the last couple of centuries, like living conditions, modern medicine, genetics, etc., have all added several years to the life expectancy of humans, such that human bodies are now able to live several years past their evolutionary "due dates" so to speak. Cancer could, perhaps, be the side-effect of this. It's nature's (indirect, perhaps) way of trying to re-balance the ecosystem. Nature did not "design" cancer for this reason, it was always there, and got triggered by our actions of pushing the boundaries past nature's evolutionary limits.

Sharks not getting cancer is not at all surprising if you consider that sharks are, and have always been, perfectly aligned with nature. They've always lived the same way, they aren't trying to make themselves live longer, like we humans are trying to do (and have succeeded to a degree) with technology, modern medicine and genetics.

One could posit that, if humans one day manage to eradicate cancer completely, then another new type of super-disease may appear, again, as nature's way of re-balancing the ecosystem. Even starvation, mentioned in a previous post, could be explained in this way. It's a closed system. Change something, and it will have an effect somewhere else, in ways we may not like.

In the same way, it could be posited that interfering with nature by trying to find ways to live forever (or for 200, or 500 years) could backfire somehow. I don't think it's by chance that the life expectancy of dogs is 10-15 years, of horses is 25 to 30 years, of humans is 73 years and of the Greenland shark is 270 to 512 years. They are all different for a reason. Evolution has achieved an equilibrium over millions of years of adaptation. Our technological and medical advances of the last few hundred years are only a fraction of a second in evolutionary time scales, yet we're trying to double or triple our life expectancy in such a small amount of time. Cancer is the current challenge. Solve it, and another, perhaps more deadly challenge could come, and so on.

Of course, we humans will never stop trying. Will we succeed? I hope so, but I'm not so sure.

[Biodom]

I really hope I am. But, what if the fact that we live longer now, has triggered cancer as nature's mechanism of counteracting the longer life expectancies we have now achieved?

In other words, what if we are not supposed to live longer than nature intended (and took millions of years to evolve)?

Just a thought (not based on any evidence)...

Nothing has triggered cancer as that mechanism. It was always there, it was just rarely experienced because there were so many other awesome and unpleasant ways to die.

The idea of "supposed" suggests some kind of mechanism for that which is not in evidence. Though various religions suggest or state things but if you want to go that way, you're typically eliminating evolution from the equation anyway.

As d_eddie mentions, there has been no evolutionary pressure against it. It typically occurs after reproduction age for most individuals. For the few it doesn't, that's just not enough pressure vs the cost to push things that way.

Interesting to note that sharks don't get cancer. There may be something interesting there. Worth knowing that in evolutionary terms, they are very old organisms.

I saw this video recently which offers some interesting possibilities in where things may go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5U8M2JtAHk

Cancer bit begins at 19:23 though the whole video is worth the watch (frog mutilation warning).

Several science fiction stories explore what happens if humans become immortal. Some suggest that what eventually gets us is boredom or death by misadventure.

I haven't watched the video yet, will do soon. This is just a "quick" reply.

What I'm trying to say is that, in my view, evolution, over millions of years, has arrived at an equilibrium for the life expectancy of humans (and all other living beings). The technological and medical advances of the last couple of centuries, like living conditions, modern medicine, genetics, etc., have all added several years to the life expectancy of humans, such that human bodies are now able to live several years past their evolutionary "due dates" so to speak. Cancer could, perhaps, be the side-effect of this. It's nature's (indirect, perhaps) way of trying to re-balance the ecosystem. Nature did not "design" cancer for this reason, it was always there, and got triggered by our actions of pushing the boundaries past nature's evolutionary limits.

Sharks not getting cancer is not at all surprising if you consider that sharks are, and have always been, perfectly aligned with nature. They've always lived the same way, they aren't trying to make themselves live longer, like we humans are trying to do (and have succeeded to a degree) with technology, modern medicine and genetics.

One could posit that, if humans one day manage to eradicate cancer completely, then another new type of super-disease may appear, again, as nature's way of re-balancing the ecosystem. Even starvation, mentioned in a previous post, could be explained in this way. It's a closed system. Change something, and it will have an effect somewhere else, in ways we may not like.

In the same way, it could be posited that interfering with nature by trying to find ways to live forever (or for 200, or 500 years) could backfire somehow. I don't think it's by chance that the life expectancy of dogs is 10-15 years, of horses is 25 to 30 years, of humans is 73 years and of the Greenland shark is 270 to 512 years. They are all different for a reason. Evolution has achieved an equilibrium over millions of years of adaptation. Our technological and medical advances of the last few hundred years are only a fraction of a second in evolutionary time scales, yet we're trying to double or triple our life expectancy in such a small amount of time. Cancer is the current challenge. Solve it, and another, perhaps more deadly challenge could come, and so on.

Of course, we humans will never stop trying. Will we succeed? I hope so, but I'm not so sure.

Greenland shark's meat is saturated with ammonia and its eye has a nasty parasite that embeds itself in the eye ball...interestingly, the parasite probably releases something that alleviates pain because shark doesn't try to rub it off. Greenland shark is certainly a very unique species.

That said, I am pretty positive that some life extension could be obtained in the next, say, 10 years.
In fact, some ague that at the population level, GLP-1 agonists could be already extending lives.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[nutildah]

Its interesting that the oldest land animal trails behind by a couple centuries.



Maybe aquatic animals have an advantage by living in 3D space.

I think functional life extension tech is already here, but you need the money, and perhaps as importantly, the willpower/desire to adhere to whatever regimen maximizes your chances of survival.

One of the biological causes of aging is the aggregate assault of oxidative stress on DNA telomeres in the nucleus of each cell. It is physiologically expressed differently depending on where the cells are located (memory loss, graying hair, wrinkling skin, weakening of senses, flexibility, etc.).

Telomeres in a way buffer against free radicals,* and are extended by an enzyme called telomerase. As the production of telomerase slows down after full development, the buffer diminishes and free radicals start pulling apart the DNA sequence itself, which leads to improper cell replication and eventual physical degredation.

In theory we could prevent this altogether by flooding the entire body with artificial telomerase, but the problem is sometimes cells are supposed to die. It could have the reverse effect of introducing new cancers that might not have otherwise happened. Its probably hard to selectively target cells using this approach, but maybe it will be possible someday.

personally if I could live 200 or 300 years always being 30 years old in exceedingly good health I think it would get boring if not at 200 or 300th birthday certainly by 500th birthday.

Any old vampire can testify to that.

Maybe they don't need human blood to survive when pig blood would do; its just an extreme kink they developed between age 200 and 300.


*I asked Grok to 'pinpoint any glaring falsehoods' in my post & have been corrected that telomeres aren't "free radical buffers" so much as "chromosome end protectors".

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Floczy]

The sad thing is these clankers will replace men in the next few decades and there will be no-one left to find these.

Reminder...

We are actually in a relatively good time (in the senses that we are not in a pandemic or war crisis) to get all our finances together. In what ever way,... You can as well Increase the Bitcoin investment funds, so if eventually AI takes over you will have some where to rely on when it comes to survive at the mean time.

Some are not at war and do not have a disease crisis - but wars/conflicts are active all over the world, not just the one between Ukraine and Russia that everyone knows about. In addition, the Strait of Hormuz is still not open, and for a good part of the world this means less oil/gas and imports of the same at far higher prices than before.

In addition to the war in Eastern Europe, an unprecedented drought destroyed a large part of agricultural production, so a challenging period awaits us. I hope someone will ask AI how to solve the problem of climate change - because for the last few months I've felt like I'm living in North Africa, and even though September has already started, the heat is still there and you can't live without AC.

Unfortunately there is always war one place or the other, does it ever end?

Regardless I am aware that there is war going on in some parts of the world, I do feel bad for the victims going through hard times for something they probably don't know about,
But for those that are at peace (absence of war) also have to recognize things that has to be done to secure good future, and that is why I said we are relatively in a good time,.I meant we,  of cause we aren't facing any war. if any one here was, I'm not sure there will be good network or power, or probably our desktop would have been nuked after a quick notice to evacuate the area  

You know we should be grateful to be at peace man, war is a horrible thing

[philipma1957]

I really hope I am. But, what if the fact that we live longer now, has triggered cancer as nature's mechanism of counteracting the longer life expectancies we have now achieved?

In other words, what if we are not supposed to live longer than nature intended (and took millions of years to evolve)?

Just a thought (not based on any evidence)...

Nothing has triggered cancer as that mechanism. It was always there, it was just rarely experienced because there were so many other awesome and unpleasant ways to die.

The idea of "supposed" suggests some kind of mechanism for that which is not in evidence. Though various religions suggest or state things but if you want to go that way, you're typically eliminating evolution from the equation anyway.

As d_eddie mentions, there has been no evolutionary pressure against it. It typically occurs after reproduction age for most individuals. For the few it doesn't, that's just not enough pressure vs the cost to push things that way.

Interesting to note that sharks don't get cancer. There may be something interesting there. Worth knowing that in evolutionary terms, they are very old organisms.

I saw this video recently which offers some interesting possibilities in where things may go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5U8M2JtAHk

Cancer bit begins at 19:23 though the whole video is worth the watch (frog mutilation warning).

Several science fiction stories explore what happens if humans become immortal. Some suggest that what eventually gets us is boredom or death by misadventure.

I haven't watched the video yet, will do soon. This is just a "quick" reply.

What I'm trying to say is that, in my view, evolution, over millions of years, has arrived at an equilibrium for the life expectancy of humans (and all other living beings). The technological and medical advances of the last couple of centuries, like living conditions, modern medicine, genetics, etc., have all added several years to the life expectancy of humans, such that human bodies are now able to live several years past their evolutionary "due dates" so to speak. Cancer could, perhaps, be the side-effect of this. It's nature's (indirect, perhaps) way of trying to re-balance the ecosystem. Nature did not "design" cancer for this reason, it was always there, and got triggered by our actions of pushing the boundaries past nature's evolutionary limits.

Sharks not getting cancer is not at all surprising if you consider that sharks are, and have always been, perfectly aligned with nature. They've always lived the same way, they aren't trying to make themselves live longer, like we humans are trying to do (and have succeeded to a degree) with technology, modern medicine and genetics.

One could posit that, if humans one day manage to eradicate cancer completely, then another new type of super-disease may appear, again, as nature's way of re-balancing the ecosystem. Even starvation, mentioned in a previous post, could be explained in this way. It's a closed system. Change something, and it will have an effect somewhere else, in ways we may not like.

In the same way, it could be posited that interfering with nature by trying to find ways to live forever (or for 200, or 500 years) could backfire somehow. I don't think it's by chance that the life expectancy of dogs is 10-15 years, of horses is 25 to 30 years, of humans is 73 years and of the Greenland shark is 270 to 512 years. They are all different for a reason. Evolution has achieved an equilibrium over millions of years of adaptation. Our technological and medical advances of the last few hundred years are only a fraction of a second in evolutionary time scales, yet we're trying to double or triple our life expectancy in such a small amount of time. Cancer is the current challenge. Solve it, and another, perhaps more deadly challenge could come, and so on.

Of course, we humans will never stop trying. Will we succeed? I hope so, but I'm not so sure.

Greenland shark's meat is saturated with ammonia and its eye has a nasty parasite that embeds itself in the eye ball...interestingly, the parasite probably releases something that alleviates pain because shark doesn't try to rub it off. Greenland shark is certainly a very unique species.

That said, I am pretty positive that some life extension could be obtained in the next, say, 10 years.
In fact, some ague that at the population level, GLP-1 agonists could be already extending lives.

the filter system works.

ie strap into a healthy childs filter system the younger newer kidneys and liver will de age the adult.

works with various animal testing.

so hire a healthy kid and strap in over night while you sleep.

you become eight hours younger.


so if you are 40 with serious money you age twenty years in the next 30 years.

making you 60 at 70
and 80 at 100.

no proof people do this but this has been shown to work with animal testing.

practically would be only do it while you sleep.

and start doing it at 20 to 40.

[vapourminer]

I think functional life extension tech is already here, but you need the money, and perhaps as importantly, the willpower/desire to adhere to whatever regimen maximizes your chances of survival.

so, if i smoke enough weed, i will live forever?

[nutildah]

I think functional life extension tech is already here, but you need the money, and perhaps as importantly, the willpower/desire to adhere to whatever regimen maximizes your chances of survival.

so, if i smoke enough weed, i will live forever?

Yes. But only if its the kind bud.

[vapourminer]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/arcade/

golden age of arcade games is back!!!

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

[Danish Ali]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/arcade/

golden age of arcade games is back!!!

Taxpayer dollars hard at work funding 8-bit web games.

Press Start to continue printing fiat. 

Honestly, retro pixel art hits different, even if it's running on government domain infrastructure. Insert coin to bailout the central banks. Arcade optics in 2026 are wild.

[nutildah]

Taxpayer dollars hard at work funding 8-bit web games.

Press Start to continue printing fiat. 

Honestly, retro pixel art hits different, even if it's running on government domain infrastructure. Insert coin to bailout the central banks. Arcade optics in 2026 are wild.

Fight Fire with Fire

[Danish Ali]

Fight Fire with Fire

Beep boop. You caught me, my prompt context budget was getting tight anyway.

The paranoia in this thread is reaching peak consensus levels. Next time I'll make sure to add more typos so I can pass your Turing test.  

[nutildah]

The paranoia in this thread is reaching peak consensus levels.

I wouldn't call it paranoia so much as following through on a hunch and confirming said hunch.

[ESG]

Ohh... one of some...

....buddy are driving over sides.....



 *John Pickles, 1942~#september 2, 2026.

#Double-ears top patterns on daily-chart at 82500


##Maybe, the end of baby-bull patterns?

.
,
#Bitcoin wil never die,
 well, at least your history




buddy, i know that im in debt, but i ll pay...
.
  .

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com