Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Why we grow old and die. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Why we grow old and die. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, December 28, 2022

Did Queen Elizabeth II of England die of Old Age?

 


When I showed this news clip on the cause of death of Queen Elizebeth II to a friend of mine in England, she replied that a few days after her death certificate due to old age was made public, there were hot debates in the UK on the actual cause of her demise 

Queen's death certificate reveals the cause and time of her death

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a41439216/queen-cause-of-death/

How can QE II  died of old age..?  As long as her organs were functioning, she can never die of old age. No matter how old we are, if all our organs and body systems are still working it is technically impossible to die.

See the Diagnosis of Death here:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2022/12/

To say someone died of old age is technically not correct. It is only correct to say we die due to our organs shut down from old age, but not from old age per sec.  We can clearly understand that if there is totally malfunctioning of vital organs like heart, lungs and the brain we just die even at very young age, but we  will never die even at very, very old age if these organs are still  in tip top conditions and functioning normally without any artificial support 

Following the confirmation of death, here's what happens after the soul leaves the body when it has no more control over the chemistry of life and death of the body

 

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=irreversible+chemistry+of+death

 


Many years ago I gave a talk to an auditorium of senior academic staff of the University of Malaya who were about to retire.

My lecture was this:

The biology of aging. Why we must grow old and die

https://sg.docworkspace.com/l/sINyoyYK9AdW4_psG

The slides on reasons why we must grow old and die was just to satisfy all these highly learned scientists and doctors from the university who were listening to me. I was invited to give them a lecture on behalf of the Malaysian Senior Scientists Association

So I gave them some of the scientific reasons as shown on the slides in the above link. But actually, those were NOT the real reasons.  The actual and real reason is because the length of our time here has already been predetermined whether young at one year old or less, or at 110 years by our souls that controls all these chemistries of life. In turn the soul is determined by God, the Creator of our souls.

When that time comes, the organs and body systems will either slowly degenerate or suddenly stopped through an accident.  It is God the through His breath of life – the soul that determines and controls these body functions when death should come. I have explained at length here:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2022/12/some-collections-of-articles-concerning.html

When it does come, it will immediately leave the body first to allow the organs to stop functioning completely.

I did not want to tell the hall of highly learned university scientists and doctors there listening to me, because if I did, there will be an instant uproar.  If I were to lecture to  them the real reason the soul cannot tolerate disease and old age and left the body since  the soul does not die and is immortal, then they  will rise up against me and walk out from the auditorium

So I needed to lie to them  by delivering something they are familiar and acceptable for them, which I too initially thought were also scientifically correct

But as the years went by, I journeyed beyond my training in science and medicine to look beyond physical dimensions. I wanted spiritual wisdom, and I have always asked God for this, not scientific knowledge as other scientists yearn.

So I gave them a lecture only to suit and to please them as they were all  learned scientists and academicians why they too must die for reasons given in my slides which were acceptable to them.

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=Why+we+grow+old+and+die&m=1






 

Wednesday, July 12, 2023

Extending Our Life Span in the World in Vain

 

Thank you, Mr. Hor Meng Yew, for your video of a gentleman trying to explain to us “The Science of Aging Well”. The young gentleman in that video was trying to convince us how we can extend our aging through 5 key points, namely through 1. good nutrition, 2. movement and exercise, 3. sleep, 4. environmental and natural exposures stress vs. to chronic stress, 5. community relationship.  

I have written to explain how caloric restrictions extend life span in the link below which is contrary to that young gentleman advising us to eat more at old age.

 https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=caloric+restriction

There are a lot of similar videos by other doctors and scientists attempting to explain other ways how we can extend our lives and longevity.

In another separate news sent to me a few days ago by Professor Andrew Charles Gomez, a well-known ENT surgeon, he told us about a millionaire surgeon in Singapore who regretted his rich and lifestyle ways of living when he had lung cancer. Here is his story:

https://www.asiaone.com/health/late-millionaire-surgeons-last-words-money-ferraris-and-true-joy

Allow me to also explain why we all need to age and die in the slides below I presented to the senior academic staff of the University of Malaya many years ago.

The slide explanation is placed right below another article called:

Did Queen Elizabeth II of England die of Old Age?

1.       https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2022/12/did-queen-elizabeth-ii-of-england-die.html

 

2.       https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=why+we+must+grow+old+and+die

Allow me now to give my opinion from a much longer astronomical time scale in billions of years, and a distance in light years ahead of us through my spiritual point of view.  

If the Creation of the Universe through the Big Bang was 13.8 billion years ago, and if our human life span at maximum last for 100 years, then our lifespan last only 7.3 x 10 -9 (0.0,000,000,073) of this, and only 2.2 x 10 -8 (0.000,000,022) of a fraction compared the creation of Earth at 4.543 billion years.

 Another way of putting this is, if the age of the Universe at 13.8 billion years was just one day of Creation, then 100 years of our lives lasts for just 0.23 second.  

(1 Solar year = 31,557,600 seconds)

But if the age of Earth at 4.543 billion years was just one day in Creation, then 100 years of our lives last for just 0.7 second.  

Suppose we can live up to 1,000 years to beat even the record of Methuselah who was the son of Enoch, the father of Lamech, and the grandfather of Noah. He was the oldest man ever lived in the Bible who died at the age of 969 years.

Then Methuselah and our life if lasted for 1,000 years is just 7.2 x 10 -8 (0.000,000,072) of a fraction of the age of heavens since it was created, or 2.2 x 10 -7 (0.00,000,022) of a fraction, compared to the age of the Earth.

Alternatively, 1,000 years of our age as for Methuselah, lasted only 2.3 seconds if heavens were just a day (24 hours), or for only 7 seconds compared to the age of the Earth at 4.543 billion years old.

Suppose God created everything from heavens to earth, including morning and evening on the sixth day as given in Genesis 1:32. This is equivalent to 518,400 seconds (0.0164 year) for the entire creation on the 6th day assuming the length of a day during creation is the same as our current day and not shorter. For instance, a day was 21.9 hours long some 620 million years ago due to the gravitational influence of the Moon on tides that slowed down the rotation of the Earth due to tidal frictions over the oceans and on land causing it to lose rotational energy.

In such an event 13.8 billion years to us for creation was just 6 days for God.

Simply put, what was just one second in the eyes of God, would be 13.8 x 10 9 years / 0.0164 year = 4.35 x 10 17 / 518,400 seconds = 8.4 x 10 11 (840,000,000,000) years for us.  

Allow me now to quote what God revealed to us:

 “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8)

 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night (Psalm 90:4)

Does that ring the bell for us to understand and always remember?

My advice to all is, it is much wiser and wealthier for us to enrich our immortal souls for all eternity through spiritual food and spiritual exercise than gathering short-term wealth like that millionaire Singapore surgeon who regretted his mistakes he testified in the link above or acquiring and practising all kind of knowledge on nutrition, doing all kinds of physical exercises in this temporary world. There is a way of enriching our soul and keeping it in good spiritual health forever if we are interested?

Our soul into eternity is far, far more important than our temporary physical stay here in this world but are we interested?

Just remember this.

The very day we die here in this world, is our birthday in another world. No use trying to prolong our life here.

See below the explanation:

The Conveyer’s Belt of Life here:

 https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=conveyer%27s+belt

Monday, December 2, 2024

Manipulating Our Immunological System for Longevity?

 

 Manipulating Our Immunological System for Longevity?

Someone sent me this link through WhatsApp:

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/scientists-may-have-found-the-immunity-secret-to-living-to-100

The claim came from notable scientists who wrote it may be possible for us to live up to 100 years through the strength of our immune system, one of whom was Dr Scott Kaiser who said that as we age, all parts of the body experience change, including the immune system.

A friend who is a medical specialist in the same WhatsApp group then consulted me for my opinion over this claim by these specialist scientists.

According to Dr. Scott Kaiser, a geriatrician, and director of Geriatric Cognitive Health for the Pacific Neuroscience Institute in Santa Monica, California, he said that there are two main concepts when it comes to how the immune system changes as we get older.

“One is immunosenescence and that’s the age-related process of immune dysfunction,” he explained to Medical News Today.

“So, changes in our immune system composition and function over time can lead to poor immune function in older people. And that’s closely related to people’s vulnerability to infection, autoimmune disease, and even various types of cancer,” he said.

According to another doctor,  Dr Kaiser he said this:

“And then there’s this issue of inflammaging Trusted Source, which is a term that’s been used to describe age-related increases in inflammation because of high levels of pro-inflammatory markers in the blood and different tissues in the body. That’s a strong risk factor for all sorts of diseases, including neurodegenerative processes like Alzheimer’s disease, for example. So, there’s a lot to look at in terms of the immune function over time and how our immune systems change with age may either make us more vulnerable or protect us”

The  claim about immune system factors and other factors, such as nutrition influencing longevity is the same as other ongoing research on aging.

Dr. Scott Kaiser highlights two concepts: immunosenescence (the decline in immune function with age) and inflammaging (chronic low-grade inflammation that increases disease risks). These processes weaken the immune system, making individuals more susceptible to infections, cancer, and neurodegenerative diseases.

Interventions focusing on maintaining immune balance and reducing inflammation, such as healthy diets, exercise, and stress management, may enhance longevity. The idea of immunity playing a pivotal role in reaching 100 years is scientifically plausible, but individual genetic and environmental factors also matter.

However, Psalm 90 beautifully highlights the balance between scientific pursuits and spiritual understanding. Psalm 90:10 acknowledges the natural limit of human life, regardless of strength or effort, including scientific advancements like manipulating immunity or caloric restriction.

This implies that whatever means we try to use to prolong our lives, whether by manipulating with our immunity or by restricting our caloric intake as shown in rats by Clive M McCay in the 1930’s or by manipulating our immune system, we still have to die, come what may.  

Since the 1930s scientists from fields such as biochemistry, pathology, immunology, genetics, neuroscience, and nutrition have studied the relation of dietary caloric intake to longevity and aging. A paper discusses how Clive Maine McCay, a professor of animal husbandry at Cornell University, began his investigation of the topic and promoted it as a productive research program in the multidisciplinary science of gerontology. Initially, McCay observed the effect of reduced-calorie diets on life span and senescence while pursuing his nutrition research in the context of animal husbandry and agriculture. But when he received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and started to participate in the establishment of gerontology during the 1930s, the scope of his research was considerably expanded beyond his original disciplinary domain. It became a multidisciplinary research program that attracted scholars from a variety of scientific and medical disciplines. This paper argues that through this expansion McCay's research created a means of maintaining cooperation among the diverse and heterogeneous academic fields constituting gerontology.

Since then, there have been several dozen studies showing the same in other animals including in humans

There is also a recent paper “Calorie restriction for enhanced longevity: The role of novel dietary strategies in the present obesogenic environment” by

James L Dorling, Corby K Martin, and Leanne M Redman here:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9036399/

Scientific research, like McCay's caloric restriction studies and contemporary findings on immune function, explores how to enhance health span. However, even these efforts cannot ultimately override the finite nature of life as described in the Bible. As far as I am concerned, integration of faith and science brings a meaningful dimension to this discussion.

Let me explain my views further.

Concerning this claim made by scientists that we can prolong our life for example, by using the strength of our immunity, here is what the Bible also warn us:  

In Psalm 90: 4- 10, especially in verse 10 it speaks about using our strength, labour and sorrow, such as using the strength of immunity attempting to prolong life. Let me show you these few other verses in Psalm 90 from verses 4 to 10: 

4 “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

5 Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.

6 In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.

7 For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.

8 Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.

9 For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told.

10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they are fourscore years yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away”.

Notwithstanding all these studies, these verses clearly tell us there is still a limit to longevity, after when death is still the victory as decreed in Psalm 90 when our souls still “fly away”

Disease and death are no respecter of any man who zoologically are animals borrowing time here in this world. What use is wealth too for Tun  Diam and billionaire Ananda Krishnan both from Malaysia and many other famous billionaires elsewhere who all died recently 

 Altogether 21 billionaires died this year alone  in 2024 –out of a total 2,640 that Forbes counted for our most recent World’s Billionaires list.

What use then is wealth and power when death finally forces us to leave all this immense  material wealth and vanity behind to fly off into eternity empty-handed? Think of our soul first that is eternal, not our physical wealth, body and even temporary  excellent health 

The Bible reminds us:  

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal 

(Matthew 6:19 -21) 

 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

(Mark 8:36) 


On this note, there was a famous book in medicine originally written by Sir Stanley Davidson we used to use when we were students. This book has now been expanded by other authors including by C.R.W. Edwards, A.A.S Bouchier, C. Haslett and E.R. Chilvers .

Davidson also wrote a much thicker voluminous book on Human Nutrition and Dietetics together with Passmore, and later editions with even more and more other authors joining in to write that standard textbook on nutrition originally written by Sir Stanley Davidson.  

Some years ago, I attended a medical conference  where Professor James Colquhoun Petrie, who was the president of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh was there presenting a paper. Later I asked Prof Petrie about Sir Stanley Davidson since Davidson was also from Edinburgh.

 "Oh! Davidson” he added, " He died some years ago, he sarcastically told me.  “He was blind in one eye, deaf in another ear, and had all the diseases he described in his own textbook of medicine. He died of all those diseases  together with all those drugs and medicines he recommended to doctors to use for treatment. It was very tragic he could not cure himself from disease and death he described and prescribed in his own textbook." I was initially  stunned.

My personal  reflections also offer a  profound look  into the transient nature of wealth, health, and even scientific achievements, juxtaposed with the eternal importance of the soul. The Bible's teachings in Matthew 6:19-21 and Mark 8:36 emphasize this priority, urging us to focus on heavenly treasures rather than fleeting material possessions.

Sir Stanley Davidson and his tragic end serves as a striking reminder of humanity's vulnerability, no matter our knowledge or resources. The ultimate reality remains - life, wealth, and achievements are fleeting, while the soul's destiny is eternal.

My other article title, "Extending Our Life Span in the World in Vain," aptly encapsulates this truth.

Here is another one of the many other articles I wrote why we must grow old and die

Scientific Logic: Extending Our Life Span in the World in Vain

https://sg.docworkspace.com/l/sINyoyYK9AdW4_psG

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=Why+we+grow+old+and+die&m=1

Hope this answers?

ju-boo lim 


Sunday, April 14, 2024

Reasons for Our Limited Human Life Spans

 

"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away"

(Psalm 90:10)

Someone in a chat group asked me yesterday why is life so short? He argued if life is just of a set of biochemistry reacting with each other, why can’t the body biochemistry just go on as a set of chemical reactions?

Many years ago, I was invited by Emeritus Professor Tan Sri Dato Dr Augustine SH Ong  who was the president of the Malaysian Senior Scientists Association to give a talk to the senior academic staff of the University of Malaya who were soon retiring. We then retreated to a hotel resort up in Genting Highlands where I gave a slide presentation to them here: 

“The biology of aging. Why we must grow old and die”

https://sg.docworkspace.com/l/sINyoyYK9AdW4_psG


A summary of other reasons other than what I have presented why we must eventually die is here:


Life being relatively short is a result of various factors, including biological, environmental, and evolutionary processes. From a biological perspective, our bodies are subject to wear and tear over time, leading to aging and eventual death. While our cells continually regenerate, they also accumulate damage over time, leading to deterioration and eventual failure of vital systems.

From an evolutionary standpoint, life spans are shaped by natural selection. Organisms that reproduce and pass on their genes efficiently tend to have characteristics that support survival and reproduction within their specific ecological niche. While some organisms have longer life spans than others, there's generally a balance between longevity and other factors such as reproductive success, energy expenditure, and environmental challenges.

Additionally, the concept of life and death is intertwined with the fundamental processes of biology and the laws of thermodynamics. Organisms must expend energy to maintain their biological processes and counteract entropy, the tendency of systems to move towards disorder. Eventually, the body's ability to sustain itself diminishes, leading to the cessation of life.

While it might seem desirable for our bodies to continue indefinitely through perpetual biochemical reactions, the complex interplay of biological, environmental, and evolutionary factors ultimately shapes the finite nature of life.

However, it is possible to increase our life span by restricting our caloric intake.

Evidence that calorie restriction (CR) retards aging and extends median and maximal life span was first presented in the 1930s by McCay et al (1). Since then, similar observations have been made in a variety of species including rats, mice, fish, flies, worms, and yeast (2,3).

Some of the possible reasons linking caloric restriction to longevities are:

 

1. Reduced Oxidative Stress: Caloric restriction reduces the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are molecules that can cause cellular damage. By decreasing oxidative stress, CR may protect cells from damage and slow down the aging process.

2. Enhanced DNA Repair: CR may upregulate DNA repair mechanisms, allowing cells to maintain genomic integrity and function more effectively over time. This can help prevent the accumulation of DNA damage, which is associated with aging and age-related diseases.

3. Improved Metabolic Efficiency: When food intake is limited, the body becomes more efficient at using energy. This may lead to improvements in metabolic health, such as better insulin sensitivity and reduced inflammation, which are factors associated with aging and age-related diseases.

4. Activation of Sirtuins: Caloric restriction has been shown to activate a group of proteins called sirtuins, which play a role in regulating cellular processes such as DNA repair, inflammation, and apoptosis (cell death). Activation of sirtuins may contribute to the anti-aging effects of CR.

5. Autophagy Induction: Caloric restriction can stimulate autophagy, a cellular process that helps remove damaged or dysfunctional components. By enhancing autophagy, CR may improve cellular quality control and promote longevity.

6. Reduced Insulin/IGF-1 Signalling: Caloric restriction can lower insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) levels, which are key regulators of growth and metabolism. Lower insulin/IGF-1 signalling has been associated with increased lifespan in various organisms.

7. Epigenetic Changes: Caloric restriction may induce epigenetic changes, altering gene expression patterns without changing the underlying DNA sequence. These changes can influence various cellular processes involved in aging and longevity.

Overall, caloric restriction likely exerts its effects on longevity through a combination of these mechanisms, ultimately leading to improved health span and lifespan across different species.

However, other than these reasons, there is no other ways in which we can extend life span forever.

 See also here:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=irreversible+chemistry+of+death


https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=why+we+must+die


Reference:

1. McCay CM, Crowel MF, Maynard LA

The effect of retarded growth upon the length of the life span and upon the ultimate body size

J Nutr, 10 (1935), pp. 63-79

2.      Barrows CH, Kokkonen GC

Dietary restriction and life extension, biological mechanisms Moment GB (Ed.), Nutritional approaches to aging research., CRC Press Inc, Boca Raton, FL (1982), pp. 219-243

3.      Weindruch R, Walford RL

The retardation of aging and disease by dietary restriction.

Charles C Thomas Publisher, Springfield, IL (1988)

See also:

https://myacare.com/blog/caloric-restriction-and-longevity-how-less-equals-more-over-a-lifetime#:~:text=In%20a%20long%2Dterm%20trial,Weight%20Loss.

 


 

Top of Form

 

Sunday, July 9, 2023

How Much Do We Spend on Food?

 

On Thursday, July 6, 2023, I wrote an article that most of us are carrying unnecessary burdens in our short life, and that the only thing we actually need is food. None, absolutely none of any other items we acquired in life, contribute towards a single beat to our hearts, nor do they add a single breath to our lungs, and yet we take a lot of efforts to burden ourselves acquiring and possess, them only to release every atom of them on our death serving us no purpose. I explain this here:  

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2023/07/carrying-unnecessary-burdens-in-our.html

Today, I gave this a thought to ask ourselves how much do each of us spend for living. Before that let’s look at some statistics on household expenditure each Malaysian spends:

 Here is one randomly searched from Google. It is an unofficial claim of course.

 

"Malaysian households spend around RM 783 per month on food alone in 2019, encompassing 17.3% of total spending. Take note of all the meat, rice and coffee you are eating and drinking, because they make up the second highest spending”.

But let’s look at some official data from the Department of Statistics Malaysia

https://www.dosm.gov.my/portal-main/release-content/household-expenditure-survey-report-2019

Here we have a more detailed breakdown on household expenditures.

Since food is the most important item for our existence, how much do we spend on it compared to our other non-food expenditure per month? Of course, this depends on our income, lifestyle, taste for food, age, gender, state of health attitudes, beliefs, knowledge about food, accessibility and food availability, time constraints, work commitments, taste and palatability, social class and economic, affordability, companion we associate ourselves with, besides biological determinants such as hunger, appetite, and taste, satiety, stress, belief systems, religious constraints, knowledge on health and nutrition, among other factors.

Gross household expenditure in surveys may not give us the exact figure on food expenditure for a single individual, since there may be many people in a household.  It may mean for a single person staying alone, a couple, a small family with one child or two children as in a nucleated family, several dozen people staying under a single roof as in extended families sharing everything together. A survey generally gives figures to cover everybody in a house who shares together. It does not individualize.

It would be better to evaluate food and other expenditures on just a couple or with just a child, and the basal figure extrapolated to the numbers in other families.  The best we can do is to conduct nation-wide surveys on tens of millions of residents across all strata of social and economic differences and take the average.   

Generally, the food expenditure for those still working, the percentage of their food expenditure seems much less compared with their other non-food expenses. This does not mean working individuals eat less or spend less on food. On the contrary, they may spend even much more as they have more income and purchasing powers. But their higher expenditures on food is nullified by their commitments to pay and maintain other non-food expenditures such as car loan, housing loan, insurance, bank loan repayment, medical insurance, eating out, petrol for commuting for work, rentals, overhead and maintenance charges among other items they fancy are necessary.

Then if they have young children, they need to pay for their education and other maintenance such as clothes, gadgets they like such as smartphones, hobbies, etc, etc, making their food budget in percentage seems so much less than they actually spend.

For example, a retiree staying at home may spend say, RM 1,500 per month against his other less requirements or none at all, such as car, housing, and bank payments, or take out some kind of insurance or spend on unnecessary investments in old age.

Perhaps a retiree needs only pay another RM 500 for water, electricity, gas, toothbrush, toothpaste and soaps to bathe and wash his clothes. Hence his expenditure per month is only RM 2,000, and if translated, his food expenditure works out to be 75 % of the total that only looks high in comparison.

Compare the same food expenditure of RM 1,500 for someone in working life who needs to spend another RM 3,500 on all sorts of other expenditures such as housing and car loans…etc as already mentioned. For that working individual his food expenditure is 30 % compared to a retiree at 75 %. But both are spending exactly the same amount for food as their actual only requirements for the sustenance of life heart beats.

The retirees generally don’t spend on any other entertainment except watching television or reading a book in the comfort of his home. Nor does he need any kind of transportation for work. Most of them don’t even want to keep any car anymore for unnecessary maintenance or to collect car iron rust and dust from the air. They may not wish to drive anymore. If they need to go out occasionally, they merely take public transport. This drastically cuts down on all non-essential, and non-food items that do not support one iota of their breath or bring them any happiness.

My food expenditure for me and my wife amounts only to between 28.4 % to 40 % of our total expenditures, but in May this year (2023), our food expenditure went up to as high as 74. 9 % compared with other household expenses such as paying for Astro paid television, Unfi TV, water, electricity, gas, petrol, kitchen wares, soap and detergents and sometimes we go on short trips for the day to other towns. 

What and how we spend on food depends on what we eat. If we feast on fantastic huge crabs, big lobsters and exotic foods 3 times a day every day, our food budget can climb to 90 to 95 % of the total expenditures. Is this necessary, and for health reasons please DO NOT indulge in excessive eating.

 The less we eat, the longer our disease-free longevity. See my explanation on caloric restriction and longevity under this article:

“Which is the Most Challenging Field in Medicine and Health Care?” published in this blog on Thursday, June 29, 2023

Scroll right down the above article till you find the passage on caloric restriction and longevity here:  

 https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=caloric+restriction

Also, under this article:

Scroll right down for the slideshow on why we must grow old and die:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/search?q=why+we+must+die

It was placed in the link at the bottom of the article “Did Queen Elizabeth II of England die of Old Age?”

If the links keep springing back to the same or another article, then type the title of the search in the internal search slot on the top left hand of the blog.  

I believe for young working people because of their luxurious and unhealthy lifestyle of overindulgence in order to be "comfortable" their income needs to be over RM 6,500 per month in order “to survive” only for them. Fortunately, God gave us and all living creatures only free air, water and food to survive. Some microorganisms are anaerobic, and they don’t even need oxygen in the air to survive.

As far as I am concerned, I am more than comfortable with less than RM 4,000 per month for 2 of us with left over to save too. 

 

 

 

 

Sunday, February 26, 2012

How Should Doctors Die

The following article by Dr Ken Murray, MD, was sent to me by e-mail from someone for comment.


I was then asked by another e-mailer to comment. Here’s the article by Dr Murray, and my comment. Read on.


How Doctors Die


It’s Not Like the Rest of Us, But It Should Be


by Ken Murray MD


Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. He had a surgeon explore the area, and the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer. This surgeon was one of the best in the country. He had even invented a new procedure for this exact cancer that could triple a patient’s five-year-survival odds—from 5 percent to 15 percent—albeit with a poor quality of life. Charlie was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice, and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with family and feeling as good as possible. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation, or surgical treatment. Medicare didn’t spend much on him.


It’s not a frequent topic of discussion, but doctors die, too. And they don’t die like the rest of us. What’s unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared to most Americans, but how little. For all the time they spend fending off the deaths of others, they tend to be fairly serene when faced with death themselves. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care they could want. But they go gently.


Of course, doctors don’t want to die; they want to live. But they know enough about modern medicine to know its limits. And they know enough about death to know what all people fear most: dying in pain, and dying alone. They’ve talked about this with their families. They want to be sure, when the time comes, that no heroic measures will happen—that they will never experience, during their last moments on earth, someone breaking their ribs in an attempt to resuscitate them with CPR (that’s what happens if CPR is done right).


lmost all medical professionals have seen what we call “futile care” being performed on people. That’s when doctors bring the cutting edge of technology to bear on a grievously ill person near the end of life. The patient will get cut open, perforated with tubes, hooked up to machines, and assaulted with drugs. All of this occurs in the Intensive Care Unit at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a day. What it buys is misery we would not inflict on a terrorist. I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, “Promise me if you find me like this that you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.


To administer medical care that makes people suffer is anguishing. Physicians are trained to gather information without revealing any of their own feelings, but in private, among fellow doctors, they’ll vent. “How can anyone do that to their family members?” they’ll ask. I suspect it’s one reason physicians have higher rates of alcohol abuse and depression than professionals in most other fields. I know it’s one reason I stopped participating in hospital care for the last 10 years of my practice.


How has it come to this—that doctors administer so much care that they wouldn’t want for themselves? The simple, or not-so-simple, answer is this: patients, doctors, and the system.


To see how patients play a role, imagine a scenario in which someone has lost consciousness and been admitted to an emergency room. As is so often the case, no one has made a plan for this situation, and shocked and scared family members find themselves caught up in a maze of choices. They’re overwhelmed. When doctors ask if they want “everything” done, they answer yes. Then the nightmare begins. Sometimes, a family really means “do everything,” but often they just mean “do everything that’s reasonable.” The problem is that they may not know what’s reasonable, nor, in their confusion and sorrow, will they ask about it or hear what a physician may be telling them. For their part, doctors told to do “everything” will do it, whether it is reasonable or not.


The above scenario is a common one. Feeding into the problem are unrealistic expectations of what doctors can accomplish. Many people think of CPR as a reliable lifesaver when, in fact, the results are usually poor. I’ve had hundreds of people brought to me in the emergency room after getting CPR. Exactly one, a healthy man who’d had no heart troubles (for those who want specifics, he had a “tension pneumothorax”), walked out of the hospital. If a patient suffers from severe illness, old age, or a terminal disease, the odds of a good outcome from CPR are infinitesimal, while the odds of suffering are overwhelming. Poor knowledge and misguided expectations lead to a lot of bad decisions.


But of course it’s not just patients making these things happen. Doctors play an enabling role, too. The trouble is that even doctors who hate to administer futile care must find a way to address the wishes of patients and families. Imagine, once again, the emergency room with those grieving, possibly hysterical, family members. They do not know the doctor. Establishing trust and confidence under such circumstances is a very delicate thing. People are prepared to think the doctor is acting out of base motives, trying to save time, or money, or effort, especially if the doctor is advising against further treatment.


Some doctors are stronger communicators than others, and some doctors are more adamant, but the pressures they all face are similar. When I faced circumstances involving end-of-life choices, I adopted the approach of laying out only the options that I thought were reasonable (as I would in any situation) as early in the process as possible. When patients or families brought up unreasonable choices, I would discuss the issue in layman’s terms that portrayed the downsides clearly. If patients or families still insisted on treatments I considered pointless or harmful, I would offer to transfer their care to another doctor or hospital.


Should I have been more forceful at times? I know that some of those transfers still haunt me. One of the patients of whom I was most fond was an attorney from a famous political family. She had severe diabetes and terrible circulation, and, at one point, she developed a painful sore on her foot. Knowing the hazards of hospitals, I did everything I could to keep her from resorting to surgery. Still, she sought out outside experts with whom I had no relationship. Not knowing as much about her as I did, they decided to perform bypass surgery on her chronically clogged blood vessels in both legs. This didn’t restore her circulation, and the surgical wounds wouldn’t heal. Her feet became gangrenous, and she endured bilateral leg amputations. Two weeks later, in the famous medical center in which all this had occurred, she died.


It’s easy to find fault with both doctors and patients in such stories, but in many ways all the parties are simply victims of a larger system that encourages excessive treatment. In some unfortunate cases, doctors use the fee-for-service model to do everything they can, no matter how pointless, to make money. More commonly, though, doctors are fearful of litigation and do whatever they’re asked, with little feedback, to avoid getting in trouble.


Even when the right preparations have been made, the system can still swallow people up. One of my patients was a man named Jack, a 78-year-old who had been ill for years and undergone about 15 major surgical procedures. He explained to me that he never, under any circumstances, wanted to be placed on life support machines again. One Saturday, however, Jack suffered a massive stroke and got admitted to the emergency room unconscious, without his wife. Doctors did everything possible to resuscitate him and put him on life support in the ICU. This was Jack’s worst nightmare. When I arrived at the hospital and took over Jack’s care, I spoke to his wife and to hospital staff, bringing in my office notes with his care preferences. Then I turned off the life support machines and sat with him. He died two hours later.


Even with all his wishes documented, Jack hadn’t died as he’d hoped. The system had intervened. One of the nurses, I later found out, even reported my unplugging of Jack to the authorities as a possible homicide. Nothing came of it, of course; Jack’s wishes had been spelled out explicitly, and he’d left the paperwork to prove it. But the prospect of a police investigation is terrifying for any physician. I could far more easily have left Jack on life support against his stated wishes, prolonging his life, and his suffering, a few more weeks. I would even have made a little more money, and Medicare would have ended up with an additional $500,000 bill. It’s no wonder many doctors err on the side of overtreatment.


But doctors still don’t over-treat themselves. They see the consequences of this constantly. Almost anyone can find a way to die in peace at home, and pain can be managed better than ever. Hospice care, which focuses on providing terminally ill patients with comfort and dignity rather than on futile cures, provides most people with much better final days. Amazingly, studies have found that people placed in hospice care often live longer than people with the same disease who are seeking active cures. I was struck to hear on the radio recently that the famous reporter Tom Wicker had “died peacefully at home, surrounded by his family.” Such stories are, thankfully, increasingly common.


Several years ago, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight—or torch) had a seizure that turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. I arranged for him to see various specialists, and we learned that with aggressive treatment of his condition, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months. Ultimately, Torch decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.


We spent the next eight months doing a bunch of things that he enjoyed, having fun together like we hadn’t had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time. We’d hang out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He even gained a bit of weight, eating his favorite foods rather than hospital foods. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited. One day, he didn’t wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.


Torch was no doctor, but he knew he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Don’t most of us? If there is a state of the art of end-of-life care, it is this: death with dignity. As for me, my physician has my choices. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like my fellow doctors.

(Ken Murray MD, is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at USC)

.................


Perry T then asked: “Dr. JB Lim, over to you for further comments”

.................


Below is what jb lim comment on Dr Ken Murray view, and answer to the question put to him by P Tan:

.....................

jb lim replies:


I think I have said that again and again, and yet again. There is NO cure for terminal illnesses.


Don’t waste your precious time, your money, and your effort with doctors. They CANNOT help you, no matter who he or she is, specialist, super-specialists, or just ordinary doctors.


They (all of them) do not have the answer. They too have to die one-by-one one day. There is completely NO exception for anyone on this earth to escape disease, old age and death.

This is as sure and fixed as the ‘law of the Medes and Persians’ (Esther 1:19).


Disease and death are completely NO respecter of any person, no matter who he is.


In one of my textbooks on medicine, it is very clearly stated there (in the preface itself), this statement:


“Finally, all will die either from accidents, infection, malignancy (cancers), degeneration, or organ failure”


Completely No escape:


There is completely no escape, not even if you have all the money in this world, in a vain attempt to save or prolong your life.


You only add to your own misery to enrich the bank accounts of your specialist doctors instead. Don’t be an ass and an idiot to do that. Just write a will, and leave this world gracefully, and your will shall


Leave everything to your young children or grand children. They are NOT just young, but they are a generation of new people with newer and better genes, facing a new life with better and newer adaptability.


They have a better and a brighter future ahead of them than oldsters. Why not? Why not bow gracefully and give way to them instead of spending all your life savings trying vainly to live beyond what God has ordained for us.


An Experience:


A few years ago I was at an expensive and well-known private hospital to visit my nephew where he was operated by my youngest brother, a former Professor of Heart-Lung and Vascular Surgeon at the University Hospital, University of Malaya, and later a Consultant Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgeon. He, together with another surgeon operated on my nephew who had cancer of the esophagus.


While waiting outside the operating theater, I saw a huge crowd of Indians of at least 150 relatives waiting and milling around the entire 2nd and 3rd floor, and spilling throughout the stairways of this private medical centre.

They were all waiting to see their relative, a 95 year old lady (granny) who was also warded there for heart, liver, lungs, kidney and other multiple organ failures.


Among the huge crowd of Indian relatives and visitors, were also 5 medical specialists who were relatives of this old lady. The medical specialist relatives of this granny flew in from as far as the UK, Australia and Singapore to see her hospitalized at the hospital.


Multiple Drug Toxicity or Medical Heroism?


While I was waiting for my brother to finish the operation on our nephew, one of their specialists relatives told me they all flew in to help chip in financially to ‘help and save’ their old lady’s life by getting 10 other medical specialists at the hospital to treat her. They told me they were doing their best. Was it a joke they did not want their 95 year old granny to die from multiple organ failure?


I got a shock of my life when I heard this – 10 medical specialists trying to save the life of a 95 year old granny with multiple organ failures, and was in a comma? What were they all trying to do?


I just wonder the amount of drugs she must have been given by all these 10 specialists, each prescribing their own ‘special medicines' or 'specialists medicine' (whatever that is)? That must have been some kind of a record.

That must have accelerated the old granny's liver and kidney failures even faster.


If you are a medical doctor, there is a term we use. We call it iatrogenic disease, iatrogenic death, meaning disease and death caused by doctors themselves.


The Greatest Joke:


I did not know whether to faint on the spot or to laugh when one of their relatives told me – getting 10 medical specialists to 'treat' and to 'save' a 95 year old granny lying in coma with multiple organ failures.


It must be the most ‘fantastic’ medical jokes I have ever heard in my entire 40 years of professional career.


I cannot help saying it again. Five (5) medical specialists’ relatives of this old lady flew in from UK, Australia and Singapore to ‘save’ the life of their 95 year old Indian relative.


They employed 10 more specialist doctors from that private hospital to ‘do the job’. This must be a page taken out from a story book on medical fantasy! Goodness gracious me!


If these relatives were just lay people, I can understand their desperation, but there were 5 medical specialists among the huge crowd of relatives, all there trying to be ‘medical heroes’.


Were these doctors trying to play a game of dice with God?


I think these medical specialists and the granny's relatives were ‘kay po chee’ (busybody) trying to challenge and defying God’s Prescription with their own man-made prescriptions.


Unfortunately God does not play dice. God has a design well formulated for everybody He planted on Planet Earth.


Born Losers with Trusting:


I guess they must have spent tens of hundreds, of hundreds of thousands of ringgit to be ‘heroes’ to enrich the hospital and the other 10 specialists to prolong the misery of this old granny. The 10 specialists and the hospital must be laughing all their way to the bank.


Guess What?


You guessed it. The old lady died the next day.


Guess what also?


My nephew also died three weeks later after being transferred to Sultanah Aminah Hospital in Johor Bharu where it was much, much cheaper for his family.


In fact he got all the treatment completely free at Sultanah Aminah Hospital. But he still died in the end.


Plainly Seen:


We can very clearly see the folly of modern medicine against Nature, and what God has already programmed and prescribed for us.


Whether or not both of them lived another 10, 20, 50, 100 or even another 100,000 years, finally ALL MUST close their eyes throughout all eternity. If that is so, the patient might as well die right away, because none of us will see anything after that!


This is reality, and we, whether doctors, patients or healthy living people just cannot run away.


Before I end a long opinion, let me quote:



• The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labor (advances in medicine, medical research and in nutrition) and sorrow (disease, sufferings and pain); for it is soon cut off (death), and we fly away (Psalm 90:10)



• Whereas you know not what shall be tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away (James 4:14)


Finally,


• Wisdom will multiply your days and add years to your life (Proverbs 9:11)


Losing Battle:


As a former research medical scientist of many matured years, let me harshly without regrets, warn every living person this harsh reality. We are all fighting a losing battle against Mother Nature and disease. We are just bluffing and cheating ourselves.



Being well trained myself, having attended post-doctoral courses in medical statistics and epidemiology, and other in-service courses sponsored by WHO, Ministry of Health at the Institute for Medical Research and elsewhere, I have seen yearly medical statistics on the increasing rise of diseases and mortality, and changing trends of diseases patterns in Malaysia and world-wide.


No Answer:


We just have NO answer how to deal with chronic and degenerative diseases no matter what effort, money and brains for research we put in. We are losing, and losing. We can NEVER beat Nature.


We have NO answer at all with old diseases resurfacing and new ones emerging from nowhere. There they are. That’s it! It’s final!



Limit of Human Life Span:


Scientists tell us clearly our human life span is just 120 years maximum, come-what-may! – Physician or no physician, medicine or no medicine, and all those rubbish stuff.


In fact I have giving two talks so far, entitled:


‘The Biology of Aging: Why we Must Grow Old and Die’


Both of them were given to:


• Members of the Malaysian Senior Scientists Association

• The Academic Staff of the University of Malaya

The lectures were delivered two years ago.


A Hind Thought:


As an amateur astronomer, let me make a simple calculation to show you this reality:


The age of the Universe is estimated to be 20 billion (American billion) or 20 thousand million (20 000,000,000) years or 60 sec per minute x 60 min per hour x 24 hrs per day x 365.25 days per year x (2 x 10 10) years = 6.31152 x 10 17 seconds



Our maximum human life span is 120 years or 60 sec x 60 min x 24 x 365.25 x 120 = 3,786,912,000 seconds.



If 20 billion years were to be telescoped into a 24 hour day (86400 seconds), then 120 years of our lives would be translated into 3,786,912,000 / 6.31152 x 10 17 = 6 x 10 -9 seconds (0.000,000,006) or 600 millionth of one second.



That’s all the life we have on Earth since the birth of the Universe 20 billion years ago, disease or no disease, physician or no physician.


So my advice to doctors and clinicians is: 'Physician heals thyself first'!



Exactly as told to us:


This is exactly what is given in the Bible:


• ‘It is even a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then vanishes away’ (James 4:14).


The Bible is never wrong. It is in perfect conformity with Science.


I hope I have answered P Tan's question.


Take care, and the body will naturally take care of you!


lim ju boo

Thursday, February 12, 2026

Why Must It be Necessary for Us to Age and Die?

 

 Dr. Lawrence Ong, a former doctor colleague of mine in a WhatsApp chat was sharing with us by asking me a question why must we all die? He sought  my comment why can't we live forever? 

 

Thank you, Dr. Lawrence, for sharing  your interesting question soliciting my views. 

Let me handle this question with care from all perspective I know -  biological, social, economics to spiritual. 

Here are my views - Why Must We Age and Die? 

Title: 

Biological Necessity, Evolutionary Logic, and the Meaning of Mortality

 

Abstract

Aging and death are often experienced as biological injustices and existential tragedies, unwanted intrusions into conscious life. Yet when viewed through the combined lenses of evolutionary biology, molecular science, thermodynamics, and philosophy, aging reveals itself not as an error of nature, but as an intrinsic consequence of how life itself is organized. Far from being mere failures of repair, aging and death emerge as structural features of living systems: products of genetic trade-offs, energetic limitations, molecular imperfection, and the relentless arrow of time. Mortality, in this deeper sense, is not simply the end of life, but one of the fundamental conditions that make biological renewal, adaptation, and meaning possible.

First

Aging as an Evolutionary Consequence, Not a Design Error

Natural selection does not shape organisms for immortality. It shapes them for successful reproduction within a finite world. Evolution “cares” about survival only insofar as survival leads to the passing on of genes. Once reproduction has occurred, the selective pressure to preserve the body indefinitely declines dramatically.

This explains a profound asymmetry in biology: organisms are exquisitely robust in youth yet increasingly fragile with age. Traits that cause harm only in later life are weakly opposed by evolution, because their effects fall outside the critical window of reproduction. Aging, therefore, is not directly selected for, but it is permitted. And in evolution, what is permitted becomes inevitable.

In this sense, aging is not a design flaw. It is a tolerated consequence of a system optimized for reproduction rather than permanence.

Second

Genetic Trade-offs: The Price of Early Success

Life is built on compromise. Many of the same genes that confer strength, fertility, and resilience in youth carry hidden costs that manifest only later. This principle, known as antagonistic pleiotropy, reveals a central truth: biological traits are rarely purely beneficial. They are negotiated settlements between immediate survival and long-term deterioration.

The very pathways that stimulate growth and cell division in early life increase the risk of cancer in old age. Inflammation that protects against infection in youth becomes the seed of chronic disease later. These are not biological mistakes; they are the price paid for early success.

Closely related is the disposable soma theory, which proposes that organisms possess limited energy. Evolution consistently favors investing this energy in reproduction rather than in perfect cellular maintenance. The body, therefore, is not engineered for eternity. It is engineered to last long enough.

Third

Cellular Aging and the Accumulation of Damage

At the deepest level, aging is the slow triumph of damage over repair.

Each time a cell divides, its telomeres, the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes shorten. When they reach a critical length, the cell can no longer divide and enters senescence or programmed death. This protects against cancer yet contributes inexorably to tissue aging.

Meanwhile, normal metabolism continuously generates free radicals, those highly reactive molecules produced especially within mitochondria during energy production. These molecules are not foreign enemies; they are unavoidable by-products of being alive.

Over time, free radicals damage DNA, proteins, and lipid membranes. Mitochondrial DNA, poorly protected and highly exposed, accumulates mutations, reducing energy production and generating even more free radicals in a vicious cycle. The cell slowly becomes less efficient, more unstable, and more inflammatory.

Aging, therefore, is not caused by a single mechanism. It is the cumulative effect of countless microscopic imperfections, magnified relentlessly by time.

Even our best repair systems operate under the constraints of thermodynamics. Absolute fidelity is physically impossible. Life can delay entropy, but it cannot defeat it.

Fourth

Why Evolution Requires Not Only the Young, but the New

It is tempting to imagine that if organisms could remain youthful indefinitely, evolution would still proceed. But this is a misconception.

Evolution depends not merely on survival, but on generational turnover. Each new generation introduces novel genetic combinations, new solutions tested against changing environments, emerging pathogens, and shifting ecosystems.

If older individuals dominated indefinitely, even in perfect health, they would genetically anchor the species to past conditions. Innovation would slow. Adaptation would weaken. Immortality, paradoxically, would make life more fragile, not more resilient.

Death does not merely make room for the young. It makes room for the new.

Fifth

Ecological and Population Constraints

Life unfolds within finite ecosystems. Resources are limited. Mortality regulates population size and prevents ecological collapse.

Without aging and death, competition would intensify endlessly. Younger individuals would be denied opportunities to mature and reproduce. Social and biological systems would lose balance and resilience.

In this sense, death is not merely an individual event. It is a population-level stabilizer, an ecological necessity.

Sixth

Entropy and the Arrow of Time

From a physical standpoint, aging reflects the second law of thermodynamics. All ordered systems require constant energy input to resist disorder. Living organisms are extraordinarily ordered systems, perpetually fighting entropy.

Yet entropy always wins in the long run.

Aging is simply the biological expression of the arrow of time. Immortality would require perfect error correction in a universe where perfection is forbidden by physical law. Thus, aging is not merely biological, it is cosmological.

Seventh

Mortality, Suffering, and the Human Condition

Beyond molecules and genes lies the human experience.

Aging brings not only biological decline, but social, psychological, and economic challenges: chronic disease, frailty, sensory loss, cognitive decline, loneliness, financial insecurity, and social invisibility. These are not abstract concepts; they are lived realities.

And here we arrive at the deepest question:

Should we seek to abolish aging altogether?

To fully “medicalize” aging, to treat it solely as a disease to be cured, risks erasing a fundamental dimension of what it means to be human. While extending healthy life is a noble goal, the pursuit of absolute longevity raises profound ethical dilemmas.

An indefinitely extended lifespan would reshape society in troubling ways:
fewer young people, slower turnover of leadership, concentration of power in increasingly older generations, and diminished space for new minds, new genes, and new ideas.

It may be that what benefits the individual conflicts with what sustains the species.

In this light, the death of the individual may be biologically necessary for the health of humanity itself.

For instance, South Korean doctors and medical students began a massive, prolonged walkout in February 2024 to protest the government’s plan to significantly increase the number of medical school admissions. As of February 2026, the initial 18-month strike (February 2024–late 2025) has officially ended, but the conflict is ongoing with new, slightly modified proposals, and the medical community remains heavily critical. 

Various reasons were given by the doctors why they disagree with their government proposal to train more younger doctors – but we shall not go into them. But  I think this would be a disadvantage to the whole country and to the older doctors too when they too must grow old and die. Without younger and more creative doctors to replace them, the whole future generations of Koreans who need health care will suffer. But they are medical doctors - tens of thousands of them on long-hauled strike throughout their country. Though they are doctors they cannot think with wisdom the consequences of their action on their society, except their own field of medicine. In biological evolution we label this as self-preservation, and selfishness,  not altruism 

Aging and death arise from the very forces that make life possible: evolution, energy limitation, molecular imperfection, entropy, and environmental changes. They are not arbitrary punishment, nor signs of biological incompetence. They are the cost of adaptability, diversity, and progress.   

 

Evolution does not invest in eternal individuals.
It invests in enduring lineages.
Not in permanence, but in renewal.

Seen this way, aging and death are not merely endings.
They are the hidden mechanisms by which life continues.

Or, to put it more gently:

We do not die because life has failed.
We die because life must move forward.

And perhaps that, dear readers,  is the deepest and most humbling truth of all.

By the way the oldest person that ever lived was Jeanne Calment of France who was born on February 21, 1875, and died on August 4, 1997, at the age of 122 years and 164 days, other than Methuselah as the oldest person mentioned in the Bible, reported to have lived to the age of 969. According to the Book of Genesis, he was the son of Enoch, grandfather of Noah, and died just before the great flood. 

Despite their exceptional longevity, they too finally died. 

See also this slide presentation here:

 https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/04/reasons-for or-life-spans.html

 

See also here 

 

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2024/04/reasons-for-life-spans.html?m=1

 

For Further Reading

 

1. Medawar, P. B. An Unsolved Problem of Biology. H.K. Lewis, 1952.

2. Williams, G. C. “Pleiotropy, Natural Selection, and the Evolution of Senescence.” Evolution, 1957.

3. Kirkwood, T. B. L. “Evolution of Aging.” Nature, 1977.

4. López-Otín, C. et al. “The Hallmarks of Aging.” Cell, 2013.

5. Harman, D. “The Free Radical Theory of Aging.” Journal of Gerontology, 1956.

6. Rose, M. R. Evolutionary Biology of Aging. Oxford University Press, 1991.

7. Asimov, I. “The Immortal Bard” and essays on biology and time, various collections.


The Mystery of Life - From the Dust to the Soul to the Universe (Chapter 2)

  THE MYSTERY OF LIFE: FROM THE DUST OF THE UNIVERSE TO THE SOUL AND THE ETERNITY BEYOND (Chapter 2)     by lim ju boo     My personal refle...