The Challenge of the Ages

“Aging” IS natural selection. Those who age, have a much greater chance of dying. The recent “pandemic” bore that out. The old (and diseased) were several times more likely to die than the young and healthy.

 That is the critical mistake non-critical thinkers make — thinking that simply living as long as possible is sufficient — rather than the quality of life (health) that makes a longer life more probable (survival).

They have it backwards — and if they program that into the cells and organisms, that will not guarantee immortality — but as we are already witnessing, simply longer lives in deterioration, dysfunction and agony. 

As Darwin observed, better selection is what ultimately survives.

Abundance requires better selection — rather than simply more frequent selection.

When food (resources) are plentiful, the winning strategy is to be more selective — and not less — which is obviously the mistake of the morbidly obese, drug abusers, and lottery winners — who all of a sudden think they have to have multiple houses and cars, which increases their liabilities and shortens their lifespans by making them more vulnerable to the viruses, bacteria, fungi, injuries and accidents.

That should have been the primary lesson of the “pandemic,” but instead was misplaced for the necessity of vaccinating the least vulnerable — in the misguided notion that that would increase the immunity of the least capable by averaging it out — as the undiscriminating wokesters like to believe.

Aging is a function of time — but we recognize that some age well while most age badly, or poorly — largely because of their lack of knowledge and bad lifestyle choices they make — doing whatever "turns them on" at the moment. These invariably have longterm and lifetime implications. That is the crux of the problem — and not finding miracle vaccines to prolong one’s life in longterm care centers indefinitely — just because they have all the money in the world, and the "fundraisers" know how to work them out of it.

That's been the challenge throughout the ages -- not the quest for immortality -- but just to live another day.  That is the survival of the fit -- and beyond that, the greater life chips in.  In every case, life ceases when the heart stops -- in every case, and not just those who die of heart disease -- because the circulation it provides prevents it from nourishment with the supporting environment.

Air from the environment no longer comes into the body -- sustaining life.  But once it is drawn into the body, such resources can be optimized by the better understanding of those processes by which some individuals can do things others have not even thought possible.  The obvious are the physical and athletic proclivities one can become proficient at -- with practice and understanding, while a rare few begin with a natural predisposition and body intelligence.

Everyone doesn't start at the same starting line -- or end up at the same finish line.  Life happens in between.  And so the proper measure of one's progress in their unique journeys is not between individuals, but each individual's results trying the many different ways.  For most, they do not just try one thing, and remain on that course all their lives.  The healthier and more robust, have tried the many different things and ways, and from that knowledge and experience, refine a better path -- as long as they are capable.

So to remain capable of doing so, is what differentiates those at the end.  Most will have long ago fallen by the wayside and resigned themselves to their fates, while the few, will still be trying everything possible that might work until the end -- and never reach that resignation before they die.  Only for the latter, does hope spring eternal -- and die still trying.  The others have long given up trying -- and even thinking anything else possible.

That seems to be a better measure of life than simply how long one lives -- even if the heart is the only organ still working.  What amazes most people is that differences and change does not have to be monumental -- but can be the slightest of differences and change -- over a long time.   It is not that "fast and furious" does better than "slow and steady" -- over a much longer time.  At that point, most have already given up entirely -- saying they are no longer young anymore -- which is irrelevant to what they could be doing now.

And that is the only relevant question, "What can I be doing now?"  You cannot rewrite the past, or reimagine the future, but you can do something now, and that is the only thing that matters, and makes a difference.  So rather than an older person asking how they can keep up with the young, a better question is what they can do better than a younger person can -- and almost dares not to?

That would be to lift a light weight better.  One does that by taking the lightest weight possible, and perfecting that movement -- while all the young people in the gym, take the heaviest weight possible, and perform that movement with the most awful form.  What do you think is more striking? -- and more productive?  Try it.  Even the simplest of movements, done precisely -- indicates the highest degree of mastery, and not the overload -- done without manifesting any skill.  Which do you think is more valuable -- and more productive?

A good example is the performer who lifts their leg straight overhead -- in contrast to barely dragging all one can carry across a line with all one can muster?  Which is a higher degree of proficiency?  Which skill would one prefer to maintain all one's life -- if possible?  Obviously the finer skill indicates much more ability -- because one might do the latter also -- but not vice-versa.  One implies the other -- and that is preferable to the much more limited ability.

Eventually we all get to that mountain -- greater range of movement, or greater resistance in a limited range of movement.  The latter does not imply the former.  Form dictates function, and not vice-versa.  And that is the primary reason most do not sustain muscular gains the longer they persist with the notion that resistance (weight) is more important than the fullest articulation of each movement.  As a practical matter, it is possible to maintain peak operating condition by simply executing the movement perfectly with the least amount of weight that enables them to do so.

The converse is all these people who tell me they can no longer perform any range of movement -- because they always use too much weight, and so it hurts, and they recognize the twinge of impending injury.  Meanwhile, the fullest articulation of the range of that movement with a weight sufficient to insure that focus and form, will enable them to retain those movements for the rest of their lives -- and the shape and condition that goes with it.  They require knowing only in what position produces fullest muscle contraction, and what position is the fully relaxed position for that muscle -- and designing a movement that moves from one extreme to the other -- as the maximum, range of movement possible.  In achieving that alternation, they mimick the action of the heart to propel blood and fluids around in a very direct, palpable and life-enabling way.  It's not just physical education jargon and magical/wishful-thinking.

Anything less is likely to produce the opposite effects and results of what one is hoping to achieve -- which is lifelong health and full-range movements.  You don't get there by doing the opposite of what you wish to achieve.