Living without food or water...Can it be done?

[HeathfieldRoad1874]

Green Tea - 3/7/2013 07:28

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 2/7/2013 23:52

Green Tea - 2/7/2013 14:41

We will never know the answer to that Heath. Without science would we not have had 2 world wars? Would we not have filth(pollution), disease, Chemicals, plastics? Dont deny yourself, that the natural human body is perfectly capable of living within natural surroundings. The man made stuff that we have produced over time that has entered our bodies has caused much harm. So of course science has had to find a cure for its very own cause. We cannot even enter the environments of some areas of the planet where unconnected tribes live and certain ape species due to the risk of us contaminating them and bringing disease upon them.

You do realise that life expectancy before the advent of Science was around 35? How can you justify life before as being better?

Depends at which point you decide to date science as starting. Irrigation, farming and domestication of (farming) animals played a huge part of the introduction of many diseases like Malaria and Small Pox. The majority of tribes untouched by the modern world would be hunter gatherers and generally living in a disease free, clean environment (well as clean as it could be). Several are protected and we cannot go near them, through danger of introducing such diseases.
Genetically modified foods, introduction of chemicals and plastics, etc also all play a part of an "unnatural" living. These things came later and once again are blamed on yet more medical problems our species has to face.

Yes, I count stone tools as Science, so definitely Irrigation and farming. This is what you are advocating, and it is nonsense to say that the net result is bad.

Diseases were around from our earliest days, hundreds of thousands of years ago. How do you explain the low life expectancy if not? How would you feel about living to 35 now?

 

[kefkat]

Beovilla - 3/7/2013 00:18

Agreed Heathfield, but after watching 'science' keeping my mom alive for so long last year when there was no point was pretty hard to take. Despite that, I am definitely in agreement. Perhaps we just need to use science better?

Like anything science can have an opposite use too. My Mom was diagnosed with cancer in 1996. With thanks to the marvelous medical science and a wonderful surgeon Mom recovered for the cancer never to come back. Mom had another 14 years. She lived to be 85.

In 2008 Mom was diagnosed with dementia. No cure for Mom cancer we would have lost her in 1996. Because there was and Mom was always a strong lady (we used to joke she was to fit to die) she lived to get what I believe to be the most horrible diseases their is. Your stripped of your mind body and are totally reliant on others for everything.

Was it good or was it bad the op in 1996. Yes it was good. Mom was 71 then and she recovered fully to have many more good years with us. The bad side is what she went with cos she lived to be a ripe old age.

There is nothing that has a 1 dimensional answer

 

[The Fear]

Can it be done?

No

FACT

(first one to use FACT again, ergo, visa vi, mange tout, my answer is the correct one)

 

[James06]

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 2/7/2013 23:52
You do realise that life expectancy before the advent of Science was around 35? How can you justify life before as being better?

I'm not sure that human beings living for a lot longer is a good example Heath.
Individually yeah it's great, but as a species, as a planet and for the greater good - it could be argued that it has been hugely detrimental.

 

[Guest]

35yrs wouldnt have been the average age - as you are basing such when invention and science had already taken hold. In fact before science you can only really see how we would have developed by observing unconnected tribes. Yet even observing those, we really wouldnt get a true answer because they too are being affected by the crap we have put into the atmosphere and our planet over 100's of years.

If you take the basic needs for most animals; they feed when hungry and many will make a nest/den/home etc as a shelter. When it rains, it didnt/dosnt take a scientific mind to understand that if you stand under something, it stops the rain drops falling on your head. It didnt/dosnt take a scientific mind to eat when your hungry...These are basic tasks in natural survival.

However, keeping 1000 chickens in a cage for the duration of their life is unnatural, breeding cattle to your own desire is unnatural, raping the land to put in crops/fertilisers is unnatural. And all these unnatural tasks that we assume has made life better, have actually came with health risks to our species as a whole. Most the diseases you say were with us from earlier days, they actually came from our unnatural workings. Irrigation of the land caused the malaria carrying mosquito to breed at a rapid rate and near the humans that were farming the land. Breeding cattle/animals also came with the introduction of various diseases which would have originated from these animals. The close contact between humans and animals meant that these diseases could adapt to then infect us.

We wasnt meant to cage animals and live so close amongst them. We wasnt meant to unnaturally breed them to fit in with our tastes. Science brought us all this, thinking it would make life better!.. In fact, hunter/gatherers do not breed/farm animals. They do not rape the land for crops, this is pretty much how most of these unconnected tribes will live. And guess what? they have no diseases, or known major health risks.(it is in fact us being a risk to them). This on the whole, how ALL the animal kingdom live bar us humans in the modernised world.

Also you can see many elders in various parts of the world, like India (and the guy in the article on this topic) that would use meditation to starve of any illness and do not use any modern day science at all, yet they/he still lives to a ripe old age. In fact wasnt the oldest women alive some time back, from an outback area in China where there are no shops, hospitals or even roads etc?

 

[HeathfieldRoad1874]

James06 - 3/7/2013 13:05

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 2/7/2013 23:52
You do realise that life expectancy before the advent of Science was around 35? How can you justify life before as being better?

I'm not sure that human beings living for a lot longer is a good example Heath.
Individually yeah it's great, but as a species, as a planet and for the greater good - it could be argued that it has been hugely detrimental.

If you look at my previous posts, I agree. However, the alternative has been made unpalatable by Religion. Death is part of life, and we need to accept it as such, not fear it.

 

[HeathfieldRoad1874]

Green Tea - 3/7/2013 16:45

35yrs wouldnt have been the average age - as you are basing such when invention and science had already taken hold. In fact before science you can only really see how we would have developed by observing unconnected tribes. Yet even observing those, we really wouldnt get a true answer because they too are being affected by the crap we have put into the atmosphere and our planet over 100's of years.

If you take the basic needs for most animals; they feed when hungry and many will make a nest/den/home etc as a shelter. When it rains, it didnt/dosnt take a scientific mind to understand that if you stand under something, it stops the rain drops falling on your head. It didnt/dosnt take a scientific mind to eat when your hungry...These are basic tasks in natural survival.

However, keeping 1000 chickens in a cage for the duration of their life is unnatural, breeding cattle to your own desire is unnatural, raping the land to put in crops/fertilisers is unnatural. And all these unnatural tasks that we assume has made life better, have actually came with health risks to our species as a whole. Most the diseases you say were with us from earlier days, they actually came from our unnatural workings. Irrigation of the land caused the malaria carrying mosquito to breed at a rapid rate and near the humans that were farming the land. Breeding cattle/animals also came with the introduction of various diseases which would have originated from these animals. The close contact between humans and animals meant that these diseases could adapt to then infect us.

We wasnt meant to cage animals and live so close amongst them. We wasnt meant to unnaturally breed them to fit in with our tastes. Science brought us all this, thinking it would make life better!.. In fact, hunter/gatherers do not breed/farm animals. They do not rape the land for crops, this is pretty much how most of these unconnected tribes will live. And guess what? they have no diseases, or known major health risks.(it is in fact us being a risk to them). This on the whole, how ALL the animal kingdom live bar us humans in the modernised world.

Also you can see many elders in various parts of the world, like India (and the guy in the article on this topic) that would use meditation to starve of any illness and do not use any modern day science at all, yet they/he still lives to a ripe old age. In fact wasnt the oldest women alive some time back, from an outback area in China where there are no shops, hospitals or even roads etc?

In the Stone Age 30 was a good age, and 35 was a long life. They are the facts.

Apart from that, everything you say confirms that we are Animals - just another species of Ape. I'm glad we finally got that sorted.

 

[RosettaStoned]

Green Tea - 3/7/2013 16:45


When it rains, it didnt/dosnt take a scientific mind to understand that if you stand under something, it stops the rain drops falling on your head.

Incorrect.

Science is observation, method, action, result and conclusion.

What you have described there is exactly how science works.

 

[Guest]

Heath, so out of the larger apes - humans would have had amongst the lowest life span? Both Chimps and Gorillas average out to living longer than 30 yrs in the wild. And that's in a world where their natural habitat is constantly under threat.

The only way you can get a conclusive result on what our average age would be, minus the modern day science, is to examine the unconnected tribes. Their generations will be more pure than what we inherit from our generations. Their immune systems will be more homed in to natural surroundings, that what ours would be.

Anyway, no point arguing over 10 years here or 15 years there. As what James has said is basically correct. - Longer living dosnt necessarily mean "better living".

The guy in the cave - I take my hat off to him, well done. Like said earlier, he dosnt need all the shit to live his life and he will most likely die a very happy and fulfilled guy. He is beyond science, maths, politics etc and in touch with life itself and himself/his body. Because of what science has done to us, it is extremely unlikely any of us could ever reach such enlightenment. Like I said earlier, it would take up to 40 years to re adjust our bodies and minds to be able to make such connections.

Can you even imagine being able to heal, feed and basically live your life through meditation?

I cant believe people are actually trying to live without food and water (like Prahlad Jani can) in the Western world. At least 3 people have died so far trying.

There is a women on facebook that tried it (just living without food, not water) for about 40 days and failed. She is ok, after reintroducing foods into her system very slowly.

 

[Guest]

mike_field - 3/7/2013 02:04



Because let's face it, if we could go without food and water, famine wouldn't be a fucking problem would it.

:1: Couldn't have put it better myself, how the feck can woman and children die of starvation if we humans can survive on bugger all, pfff

 

[HeathfieldRoad1874]

Green Tea - 3/7/2013 19:25

Heath, so out of the larger apes - humans would have had amongst the lowest life span? Both Chimps and Gorillas average out to living longer than 30 yrs in the wild. And that's in a world where their natural habitat is constantly under threat.

The only way you can get a conclusive result on what our average age would be, minus the modern day science, is to examine the unconnected tribes. Their generations will be more pure than what we inherit from our generations. Their immune systems will be more homed in to natural surroundings, that what ours would be.

Anyway, no point arguing over 10 years here or 15 years there. As what James has said is basically correct. - Longer living dosnt necessarily mean "better living".

The guy in the cave - I take my hat off to him, well done. Like said earlier, he dosnt need all the shit to live his life and he will most likely die a very happy and fulfilled guy. He is beyond science, maths, politics etc and in touch with life itself and himself/his body. Because of what science has done to us, it is extremely unlikely any of us could ever reach such enlightenment. Like I said earlier, it would take up to 40 years to re adjust our bodies and minds to be able to make such connections.

Can you even imagine being able to heal, feed and basically live your life through meditation?

I cant believe people are actually trying to live without food and water (like Prahlad Jani can) in the Western world. At least 3 people have died so far trying.

There is a women on facebook that tried it (just living without food, not water) for about 40 days and failed. She is ok, after reintroducing foods into her system very slowly.

A Gorilla in the wild lives for 35-40 years, typically, Chimps 40-45. You must be thinking of those in captivity that do live longer.

And I agree, the man in the cave was indeed lucky in many was. Life was far simpler. However, he would be unlikely to ever meet his grandchildren, child mortality would have been extremely high and the stress levels would be enormous. the definition of "better" is indeed not an easy one to agree on.

On these "breatharians", I say again, every single one that has allowed themselves to be scrutinised has been found to be a fraud. What are we to take from this, other than it is reasonable to assume they all are.

 

[kefkat]

The average age of people has only overall increased over the past 70 years or so so I don't see that has correct GT.

When they first gave a pension in 1909 it was for people who reached the age of 70. The average life expectancy was no where near that hence it wasn't a problem with them having to pay alot out, then, which is why we have a problem today because the average person lives into their 70's and more. To bring that up to date the pension age would have to be increased to 105.

People did not live to those ages GT

 

[david-avfc]

no, it is impossible to survive for years without food. The only way humans can "gain" energy is by eating food (or injecting glucose into the blood stream) and without energy you would die regardless of any other influences or lifestyle choices.

 

[Frankus]

I agree david-avfc, mammals that have inbuilt anatomy to hibernate can not even survive indefinitely without food or water - bears, rodents, etc.

I think people can train their bodies to survive longer without the essentials - i.e. air, water and food. Free-divers are a prime example of being able to train your body to require oxygen intake less frequently by means of increasing lung capacity and increasing fitness. I have heard about people holding their breath for about 20 minutes.

But training to the point of not requiring them altogether. That is just impossible.

 

[david-avfc]

yeah people can train their bodies in all sort of amazing ways, however energy from food is one of the most fundamentally important needs for all life, and that isn't even mentioning the nutrients that are gained from food as well, such as protein/ amino acids which make up practically everything in your body as well vitamins etc which aren't necessary but without them you would struggle

Although I am curious now as to how long it is possible to survive without food, I suppose a really fat person could potentially live for a long time with all the energy they have stored as fat, of course they would probably die from a lack of nutrients and/or by diseases caused by a suppressed immune system before they actually died from running out of energy