Posted on 11/21/2022 7:48:51 AM PST by bitt
It works. I’ve seen me do it.
Ping to the Oxygenated reversal of aging.
I recall reading somewhere that the oxygen content of the air we breathe is now just 30% of what it was in ages past.
Maybe so. But I live next to a vast primeval forest.
I reckon I should be looking for one of these hyperbaric pressure chambers.
it varies...lol!
Yes I am sure it varies, but the other day I was minding my business clearing offour porch deck when I happened to look up towards our fields and saw a 350 pond black bear crossing a 25 foot wide trail in two rollicking bounds, not 60 yards away.
The sun sparkled on his jet black fur.
Sometimes it takes things like that to make me realize that I am living next to a vast primeval boreal northern forest.
If he is getting lots of Oxygen, so am I, LOL.
Billie Jean is still not his lover.
“High pressure pure oxygen inside an air tight metal chamber.
Hmmm...
Why am I suddenly thinking about astronauts and the Apollo moon space craft?”
Only Apollo 1. That burst into flames and incinerated the astronauts. After that they switched to a mixed gas atmosphere with only a specific percentage of oxygen, for safety reasons.
Must have been a tenured professor! Or a short-timer, one.
Reversing or stopping the aging process would destroy our society, lead to global unrest, probably a series of violent wars.
Our entire structure of society is based on the idea that people stop being productive, and then they die.
Imagine if we just made it so people could live to 200 years old.
We’d have to make people work until they were at least 180, meaning 160 years of employment, instead of the 40-50 we do today.
Everybody imagines “living forever” as being retired forever.
And would this reversal also impact fertility age? Would women now be able to have babies until they were 140?
Overpopulation would be enough of a problem there would need to be limits to births. At BEST, those limits would be social — pressure and ostracism for those who had more kids. At worst, government-sanctioned.
I always said that a really good question for an Ethics class would be this:
“A scientist comes to you and tells you they have found the key to stopping the aging process, and that nobody knows but they are going to release it to the world tomorrow, so nobody profits from it. What is the ethical response?”
To which my answer is, you should probably kill them and destroy the research, because otherwise the release will destroy the planet.
Can I get one of these chambers for my garage? I always said that if I could live as long as I wanted, about 10k years would do the trick...
I might actually finish one of my books in that time.
Imagine if we weren’t so concerned about it taking a few years to tool around the solar system the way we are. Or even a couple hundred years to neighboring solar systems...
If we lived longer, longer term travel/exploration would lead to expansion off Earth and exploitation of, literally, limitless resources.
“involves breathing pure oxygen in a pressurized environment”
You aren’t going to get me into a pressurized environment of pure oxygen! I think the author failed to properly research and understand what is involved. Pure oxygen can result in spontaneous combustion. I suspect what they meant to say was an oxygen enriched, pressurized environment. They have to be careful even with oxygen enrichment in a pressurized environment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.