Aging is a DISEASE.
Swami Nitty-Grittycalled the deathist attitude “Living to Die.”
Biogerontologist Aubrey de Grey calls it the “pro-death trance.”
Wake up and smell the juvenile hormone within your own Fountain of Youth thymus gland, oh, deathless one!
Ageism and deathism have evolved into a powerful market for both the greeting card industry and the medical “caregivers” and caretakers of the Golden Stethoscope Cartel.
The ageist-deathist paradigm is a ghoulish domain assumption for enormous profit.
Programmed obsolescence is a money-spinning fiction of the Frankenscience thanotophiles and bureautechnocrats behind medical-pharmaceutical gigantification and its attendant proliferation of toxic materia medica.
Biological gerontology has been blitzkrieged by sociological gerontology, a pro-death gerontology (and geriatrics) that asks the question, “Where do we stash all these millions of worn-out, wrinkled-up, shriveled-up, decrepit old fogies, and who the heck is gonna foot the bill for these senile and debilitated old farts anyway?”
That’s hardly a positive approach to gerontology.
There’s a bonanza of big bucks to be reaped by mortuary and death insurance businesses, i.e., “womb to tomb” health care management.
(Death insurance is deceptively marketed as “life” insurance.)
Orwellian and Malthusian social-engineering bio-Luddites are getting their share of the pelf by shepherding the masses into accepting such anti-life concepts as “assisted suicide” and such pharmaceutical innovations as the “death control pill.”
These alphabet-agency social-engineering bureautechnocrats habitually hand-wring about how it makes “pragmatic economic sense” to eliminate society’s “onerous” burden of “old” and “unproductive” people.
Soylent Green, anyone?
The New World Economic Order is fast becoming a transnational “granny dumping” juggernaut managed by dehumanized “concerned caregivers.”
These “concerned caregivers” are the picadors and micromanagers of the Nanny State’s euthanistic age-stratification system.
They effervesce with euphemisms for age-set euthanasia, e.g., “assisted suicide,” “death selection,” and “death with dignity.”
During World War II, the Nazi euphemism for euthanasia was “disinfection.”
The deathist New Age version of “death with dignity” is “assisting one’s transformation into spirit.”
“Let death be your adviser” is deceptive New Age advice to self-satisfied robo-sapien livestock.
“Let life be your adviser” is a higher choice.
For do-it-yourselfers, the euphemism is “self-deliverance.”
An AIDS activist can actually participate in a “die-in,” a perversion of the 1960s hippie “love-in.”
To a caregiving service professional, a “neomort” is the politically correct term for a terminally ill patient.
“Saving lives” is morbidized into “mediating mortality” by physicians.
School programs such as “Death and Dying” (nicknamed “Death Education”) require children to write their own obituaries and describe their “preferred method of dying.”
Ageism and deathism are cultural assumptions and linear concepts of scarcity.
Deathist memes are overrunning the Ideosphere — known by memeticists as the “entire memetic ecology.”
Life everlasting is a luxury, not a necessity, and immortality is the CAPSTONE of Nature, not her CORNERSTONE.
Biogerontologist Bernard Strehler described aging as “essentially a result of the lack of sufficient selection pressure to foster the development of immortal race.”
Aubrey de Greyput forwardat one of his seminars, “No, aging is not a product of selection. It is simply a product of evolutionary neglect.”
Swami Nitty-Gritty said, “The art of survival is spiritual Kung Fu, gaining immunity by being put through the paces. The immortality of the cells is the continuance of the utmost war.”
Biology is not what makes Universal Immortalism impossible.
It’s made impossible by psychology — Freud’s Death Wish (Thanatos), the psychological desire forindividual annihilation.
Euthanasia means “good (eu) death (thanatos).”
'Living to Die is a Self-Fulfilling Prophesy' have 8 comments
May 9, 2011 @ 8:07 am shellinspector
“…Aubrey de Grey put forward at one of his seminars, “No, aging is not a product of selection. It is simply a product of evolutionary neglect…â€
:-)
This only makes sense if one accepts the premise of Darwinist evolution. Could be an interesting discussion, Atom, or are you are not open for that?
May 9, 2011 @ 3:12 pm atomb
I flavor my Darwinism with Lamarckism (DNA’s trucking company, RNA Incorporated, having seen several remarkable examples in “real life.”
Exodus 34:7 is the Biblical version of Darwinism, visiting the “sins” of the fathers unto the third and fourth generations.
Sunn and Maha Sunn (the Rings-Pass-Not) block these “sins” (an archery term for “missing the mark”) from reaching the fifth generation.
May 9, 2011 @ 4:18 pm shellinspector
Agree with you on that. Heredity does work and acquired traits, according to Lamarck, are passed on to the next ), yet it does not mean evolution as we know it is valid. Variation and natural selection, the culprits of evolution are in opinion of many prominent scientists, insufficient for development of complex species. Evolution principles can produce variety in __existing__ traits. It can change the shape of the beak of a finch, provided the beak is there to begin with. It can change the color of the butterfly, provided the wing is already there too.
Speaking in mathematical terms, Darwin’s evolution is only capable of optimize on a fitness function, finding local minima or maxima (depending on how we define most beneficial trait) However, it can’t go up the gradient, not by much, searching for radically different approaches and solutions. Looking at the statistical probablity of such things happen make it so ridiculous you start to wonder how respectable and intelligent men and women could accept this fallacy as valid. Darwinists often do look down at “creationists” as primitive and ignorant, while not themselves trying to look at the basic reason.
Personally, I think creation is a descending process, from complex to simple, not the other way around. I’d rather forecast lower life-span for human that higher. Our species is meant to max at 100-120. Living longer would require a new species.
May 9, 2011 @ 5:22 pm atomb
Human evolution/devolution seems more like the mythological Ouroboros – the ancient symbol of the serpent or dragon eternally devouring its own tail.
That’s an easy space for me to be as a long-time student of the I Ching: The Chinese Book of Changes.
Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj (I Am That, 1973) said, “Life weaves eternally its many webs. The weaving is in time, but life itself is timeless. Whatever name you give to its expressions, it is like the ocean – never changing, ever changing.”
May 14, 2011 @ 1:02 pm shellinspector
:-) Agree with every word. Focusing on the unchangeable is the key here. By the way, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj is my guru too, don’t know why, his books and video of him resonates so well with me. But remember, he was terminally ill and could care less for longevity nor immortality. He was _already_ immortal. Unlike him maybe most search for these things at the the wrong places?
May 14, 2011 @ 4:24 pm atomb
Due to our Living to Die cultural paradigm, we’re all terminally ill.
In the words of Swami Nitty-Gritty, “Like it or not, we all survive our decent burials.”
He also told us at Texas Institute of Reflex Sciences, “A Bioreflex Technician’s therapy is only limited by his imagination,” which seems to resonate with Paramahansa Yogananda writing, “Whatever physical man can do in imagination, causal man can do in actuality – the only limitation being thought itself.”
April 1, 2021 @ 6:17 pm nichole bowden
This is the first time I’ve recognized death as a limiting belief, this post and comments we’re very inspiring for me! Atom, will you be taking on any students of your own?
April 2, 2021 @ 3:07 pm Atom
Once we acquire a brick & mortar center. Meanwhile, it’s all about e-books, videos, blog entries, podcast interviews, etc.
http://www.solartiming.com/