James' World 2

Click the link below the picture

.

For most of the 20th century, each successive decade added about three extra years to people’s average lifespan in developed countries. For a person born at the turn of the 21st century, these incremental gains meant that they could, on average, live 30 years longer than someone born in 1900, allowing them to make it to their 80th birthday.

This phenomenon, referred to as radical life extension, was gifted to humanity by advances in various medical technologies and public health measures. Many scientists and lay people alike assumed that the trend would continue and that human lifespans would increase at the same clip indefinitely. Others, however, predicted that humans would hit a natural ceiling, with average lifespans of the world’s longest-lived countries plateauing well before 100.

New research on this hotly debated question now suggests that humanity has, in fact, reached an upper limit of longevity. Despite ongoing medical advances designed to extend life, the findings indicate that people in the most long-lived countries have experienced a deceleration in the rate of improvement of average life expectancy over the past three decades.

This is because aging—a series of poorly understood biological processes whose effects include frailty, dementia, heart disease and sensory impairments—has so far eluded efforts to slow it down, says S. Jay Olshansky, a professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lead author of the new study, which was published in Nature Aging. “Our bodies don’t operate well when you push them beyond their warranty period.”

“As people live longer, it’s like playing a game of Whac-a-Mole,” he adds. “Each mole represents a different disease, and the longer people live, the more moles come up and the faster they come up.”

Olshansky became convinced of the immutability of the aging problem in 1990, when he published a paper in Science that predicted that our gains in life expectancy must slow down, even if advances in medicine accelerate. He concluded then that it was “highly unlikely” that humanity would exceed an average life expectancy of 85 years.

The paper met with widespread pushback, he says, because “there’s vested interest in this narrative of continued gains in life expectancy.”

Olshansky was convinced he was right, though. So he decided to “be a patient scientist,” he says, and retest his hypothesis once the real-world data came in. It took 34 years, but the wait has now paid off with “a definitive yes” in support of his original findings, he adds.

Olshansky and his colleagues took a straightforward approach: they examined observed changes in death rates and life expectancies from 1990 to 2019 in the world’s eight longest-lived countries—Japan, South Korea, Australia, France, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and Spain—plus the U.S. and Hong Kong. They found that improvement in life expectancy decelerated in almost all of these places, and that it actually declined in the U.S.

South Korea and Hong Kong were exceptions. They underwent recent accelerated improvements in survival, a phenomenon the researchers suspect has to do with the fact that both places concentrated their large increases in life expectancy only recently, in the past 25 years, Olshansky says. Even so, in Hong Kong—whose population is the world’s longest-lived—the researchers found that just 12.8 percent of female children and 4.4 percent of male children born in 2019 are expected to reach 100 years old.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Gary Lockwood doesn’t believe in motivation. He didn’t get the body he has today (lean, gristly, a bit scary) simply by being motivated. He didn’t become the CEO of 24/7 Fitness because he wanted it enough. And he says as much to his clients. ‘It doesn’t matter how much motivation you have,’ he declares, pronouncing the word as if it were a nasty kind of intestinal worm. ‘There is no substitute for just fucking doing it.’

As for willpower – usually defined as the ability to resist short-term rewards in pursuit of longer-term goals – Lockwood is similarly dismissive. ‘You will not get what you want in fitness or life relying on willpower.’ Willpower is fragile. You might win the battle with your will one day, then lose it the next. The key to ‘just fucking doing it’ is what he terms discipline. ‘Discipline kicks your butt out of bed on cold winter mornings and drags you to the gym for an hour of mind-numbing cardio.’

Some people think there’s some magic pill they can take, he says, or some mystical hack to do with carbs. ‘The truth is, you have to be disciplined. The harder it is, the more discipline you need. How much you want it? It’s irrelevant.’

The Dopamine Trap

In the past 10 or 12 years – the Instagrammian Epoch, if you will – we’ve happily embraced the idea that the people who are rich, thin, toned, successful and happy must have incredible amounts of motivation. They have the power to resist Krispy Kremes, Instagram Reels, Five Guys fries, the Devil himself. By implication, those of us whose lives are a little flabbier, carbier, sloppier, sinnier, must be lacking in these virtues.

But whether or not you buy into Lockwood’s approach – inspired by the neo-Stoic philosopher Joe Rogan, incidentally – it’s hard to disagree with his central thesis: that mere desire to change is in itself insufficient for change. Moreover, he’s far from the only person who has come to view the word ‘willpower’ with suspicion. (Whether ‘discipline’ is really so different is another matter.)

‘Those of us who don’t overeat aren’t white-knuckling it. Our urges simply aren’t that strong’

‘I’m not sure willpower is the best name any more,’ says Pete Williams, a scientist at the Institute for Functional Medicine, who takes a gentler approach with his clients. The main problem for him is that willpower comes with a lot of baggage. It implies a moral failing that only increases the stress and shame associated with being overweight. Which helps no one to actually lose weight.

‘A lot of patients have a very negative relationship with themselves because they believe they don’t have willpower,’ he says. ‘Most patients who come to us generally understand what they need to do to get better.’ The problem is that much of our unhealthier behaviors are driven by the unconscious. ‘They don’t know why they do it. They just can’t help going to the fridge.’

Williams has devoted much of his professional life to understanding why this should be. Some people are irresistibly drawn to high-calorie foods; others can happily sit next to a plate of biscuits and not take a bite. Some skip cheerfully to the gym in the mornings; others find it difficult just to drag themselves out of bed. ‘The question we’ve asked is: is there any genetic basis to that variation?’ says Williams. ‘And the answer to that is yes.’

Williams’ research focuses specifically on dopamine, which plays the central role in our brain’s reward centers. Dopamine acts as both a hormone (it’s a close relative of adrenaline) and a neurotransmitter, which means it sends messages down pathways in our brain that govern different behaviors. One of those pathways, the mesolimbic pathway, has strong associations with reward and anticipation, and thus habit formation, motivation, and addiction.

.

.

.

Click the link below for the article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

Every entrepreneur dreams of coming up with a groundbreaking business idea and riding it to success. However, the reality is that very few have the good fortune to make it big on their first try. It’s far more common for entrepreneurs to work for years, looking for an idea that could offer their big break.

Every now and then though, new platforms emerge that create opportunities for potential entrepreneurs. For example, Shopify and Etsy made it incredibly easy to launch online stores, creating a new wave of business owners. Right now, Amazon’s Audible audiobook platform is creating similar opportunities, especially as Amazon makes a push to promote it.

Entrepreneur Rob Anderson has a unique perspective on how others can capitalize on this. Here’s his story and his advice to others looking for the next great entrepreneurial side hustle.

An insider’s perspective

Rob started out on Amazon as a third-party reseller who eventually built a 7-figure business. While he was successful as a private label seller of his own brand, it was a full-time job that consumed all of his attention and time and required considerable capital.

Then it occurred to him that there might be a better way to leverage Amazon’s unprecedented reach to make a profit. He began to notice that advertisements for Amazon’s audiobook platform were beginning to appear everywhere. They were sponsoring well-known personalities on YouTube and were all over the social media ad space. They even enjoyed a prominent position on Amazon’s home page.

Rob says, “Because I was already selling through Amazon, I’d seen what it looked like when the company threw its weight behind a new product, and I started to wonder if it meant there was an opportunity for people like me to capture some of the traffic their big push was no doubt creating. So I started to look at the types of audiobooks that were available through Audible. And to my surprise, most of what was there wasn’t coming from big publishing houses, it was self-published works from people all over the place.”

Sharing unique insight and experience

Rob had spent years learning how to be successful as a third-party reseller on Amazon. Given he already understood how to work within Amazon’s system to achieve prominent product placements on the site, he decided to try and publish audiobooks based on the insights he gained as a third-party reseller on the platform.

.

Rob Anderson

.

.

Click the link below for the article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

.

Ever avoid a nap because you know you’ll end up like this at night? If you nap the right way, you can still get a good night’s sleep.   Getty Images

.

.

Click the link below for the article:

.

__________________________________________

Click the link below the picture

.

This article is part of a series on what the 2024 presidential election means for science, health, and the environment. Editors with expertise on each topic delved into the candidates’ records and policies and the evidence behind them.

The U.S. is home to more guns than people. The toll of this abundance of firearms is staggering: Guns killed more than 48,000 people in the U.S. in 2022, the equivalent of one person every 11 minutes. More than half of those deaths were suicides, and guns are the overall leading cause of death in children aged one to 17. Mass shootings—600-some per year in recent years, although definitions vary—have stoked fear and anger, reshaping the American school experience. Yet mass shootings make up only a tiny fraction of firearm fatalities. And about a third of Americans say they own a gun, even as six in 10 say they favor stricter gun laws.

The rage, despair, carelessness, and greed behind the deaths may be universal, but such numbers are unique to the U.S. Here “our interpersonal conflicts are much more likely to be lethal because we’re more likely to be armed with guns,” says Daniel Webster, a gun violence researcher at Johns Hopkins University.

But there’s nothing inevitable about the prevalence of gun deaths in the U.S. It’s a reality that policies have created and that policies could change, if the political will existed. Evidence suggests that if Vice President Kamala Harris were to become the next U.S. president, she would move toward policies that would reduce gun violence—and that if former president Donald Trump were reelected, he would support laxer policies that could permit gun violence to worsen.

Compared with other common health issues in the U.S., data about gun violence are limited; data about nonfatal gun injuries are almost nonexistent. These gaps, combined with the usual scientific difficulties of distinguishing between causation and correlation, mean researchers lack much of the detailed information they need to analyze the effects of different gun-related policies. That said, the existing research does show that more guns do not keep people safer.

Here’s a rundown of what we can expect from each presidential candidate when it comes to gun policy:

Harris on Gun Policy

Harris has a long history of working with gun policy: She did so when she held a string of district attorney offices in the 1990s and 2000s and when she became California’s attorney general in the 2010s. Throughout those periods, she encouraged the development of stricter restrictions on gun ownership, as well as stronger enforcement of existing regulations. Later, as a U.S. senator, Harris worked on legislation to mandate universal background checks and to better regulate gun dealer licensing. She has in the past also called for both a ban on and a mandatory buyback of assault weapons, although Webster says studies suggest that assault weapon bans can be evaded too easily to impact violence rates.

In 2022, during the Biden-Harris administration, Congress passed the first sweeping gun legislation in nearly three decades. This included important funding mechanisms, as well as a few policy changes, such as requiring stronger background checks on gun buyers under 21 years old, requiring more gun sellers to conduct background checks, and broadening a measure meant to keep guns away from domestic violence offenders. The latter now include those who have abused dating partners, as well as spouses and close family members.

The single most effective policy to reduce gun deaths, according to Webster’s research, is an independent licensing process for gun ownership—not merely a background check managed by gun dealers themselves—that includes vetting the fingerprints and other information an applicant provides. Webster also finds positive results from regulations that take guns away from domestic violence offenders.

President Joe Biden created a White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which Harris oversees and which works on policies at both the state and local levels. “This is the first office of gun violence prevention that was initiated in the White House and overseen by a vice president,” says Joseph Richardson, Jr., a medical anthropologist at the University of Maryland. “I don’t think most Americans are even aware that she runs that office.”

.

Thomas Fuchs

.

.

Click the link below for the article:

.

__________________________________________