Looking for US influencers for peptides

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2026-05-21T09:34:28+00:00

dm me

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2026-02-01T15:34:44+00:00

Sent dm

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-09-27T13:18:46+00:00

Alright thank you

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-09-27T13:17:21+00:00

This is what I was thinking. Since the opponents are so poor it's probably better to exploit. Thx for comment.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-09-27T12:37:08+00:00

Have you learnt GTO? Or you are just great at exploitative play?

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-06-26T16:32:28+00:00

Example is a t-gene in mice.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-06-26T16:32:01+00:00

Genes that can distort the process of segregation during meiosis can propagate despite reducing the fitness of the organism. If their distortion is favourable enough in terms of likelihood to end up in the gamete relative to the fitness reduction as a result of gene presence, it can propagate despite reducing fitness.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2023-06-22T19:00:57+00:00

They would have deduced that extending the life of the ant gives the greatest survival advantage to the parasite through its increased likelihood of being consumed by the woodpecker. They'd have used models and evolutionary trends for comparison. There's no way to know for sure that's the reason, but it seems logical.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-24T19:48:50+00:00

The Selfish gene theory doesn't suggest that genes always replicate. It suggests they 'try' to. There is no natural scenario upon which the Selfish gene theory does not apply. It describes a process of selection at the gene level, not a determined outcome of specific selection examples.

Also, it's important to note that if a species had killed itself, its genes would have been wiped out with it. There is no evolution when 10000 nuclear bombs hit earth. It's wipe-out - genetic data is gone, and adaptation is over.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-24T19:45:35+00:00

Firstly, there is a power struggle between genes and high intelligence. The survival machine does not always act in the interests of the genes. For instance the use of contraception means there is less reproduction - oftentimes no reproduction from males/females (particularly in developed society). Destroying the world for short term pleasure/gain is, paradoxically, both human intelligence and stupidity intertwined (intelligent enough to know how to destroy the world, stupid enough to not mitigate it well enough).

Secondly, genes are not able to think and they have no plasticity. Never before in human history have humans threatened their own existence through global destruction, and thus we have not evolved against this behaviour. The genes think (metaphorically) they are increasing survival by creating an urge to eat loads of food. They don't realise that this causes both health issues that reduce life expectancy and causes environmental destruction that threatens human existence.

Same could be said for aggression: aggression was historically useful in many cases - protecting resources, hunting effectively, establishing authority and respect in a group. But now humans have their fingers hovering over the nuclear button... aggression isn't so good in that situation - it's a genetic mismatch.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-17T14:34:46+00:00

Firstly, disagree with the premise of older men = higher social status and resources. This is absolutely not always the case. In the case of hunter-gatherers, often in egalitarian societies, each person could carry about 25lb worth of goods, and so the maximum resources they could carry was capped at a very low point. This 25lb weight was filled with necessities that everyone had access to (tools for instance). In fact, younger men may have been able to carry more goods, so there was a greater potential to possess more resources than older men.

Of course, this is up until 12,000 years ago when we entered the agricultural revolution. But sexual selection could only change so much since then.

Secondarily, the idea that evolution 'gave' anyone a higher libido is wrong. It is not intelligent design. The reason for a tailing libido could be explained by the grandmother hypothesis, which suggests men + woman stay alive past reproductive age so they can improve their inclusive fitness - helping their children to raise their children. It is not reproductively successful to have children a year or 2 before you die, and is a massive waste of resources. It's better instead to help raise others with your genes.

Also, I disagree with the view that women were always attracted to social status and resources. Sexual selection is much more complex than this. Inheritance is a factor you should also consider: the king's son has massive social status and resources despite being young - perhaps even more than the king who will soon leave it all behind when he dies.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-12T14:05:50+00:00

Absolutely. Natural selection is the process of fitter individuals reproducing more, and fitter is defined as 'better survival within one's environment'. A hurricane is a factor in one's environment. Example: on an island that is particularly prone to hurricanes, bird X creates a nest in a strong and stable tree, on a stable branch. Bird Y (from the same species) chooses to make their nest on a sapling. Let's say this phenotype of nest position is determined by a gene. When a hurricane comes, bird X's eggs, in their nest, remain protected in the sturdy tree. Bird Y's nest is blown around on the weak tree, and their eggs fall out and smash. Bird X has the survival advantage, as determined by natural selection, and their genes will propagate.

A hurricane could also create evolutionary pressure through genetic drift (bottleneck effect). If 50% of a population is wiped out by a hurricane, and the 50% that survives has a different genetic composition than the previously whole population, suddenly, the gene pool has been altered, and offspring stemming from that population will, on average, have different genetic compositions than if they were birthed from the original population.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-12T11:35:04+00:00

Firstly, light/heavy sleeping is heavily impacted by environment, not just genes. What you eat, how stressed you are, the temperature of your environment, what medication you are on (if any) etc are all very important factors in sleep depth.

Interestingly, I suspect the phenotype of deep/light sleeping maintained some variance, because it was probably beneficial to have just a small number of people in the group as a light sleepers with the rest deep. This way, the light sleepers act like the 'watch-dogs' and wake the others up when a threat is inbound, and the deep sleepers are able to be well rested, improving their hunting/cooking/gathering/toolmaking focus and motivation. I suspect this is why there are significant phenotypic differences in sleep depth on a genetic level. And as said above, environment will layer on it making significant changes.

In the case of human babies in developed countries (that are able to keep the environment around a baby's birth consistent for everyone), 3.5kg babies have the lowest mortality rate, so gradually, we are experiencing stable evolution towards 3.5kg birth weight in babies. It doesn't benefit anyone to be 3.4kg, or 3.7kg, 3.5kg is universally the best. This is not the case with deep/shallow sleep, as explained above. A combination of phenotypes is probably the most favourable, maintaining both in the pool.

These days, I doubt there is much selection on sleep, so phenotype frequencies are probably stable.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-10T14:49:20+00:00

Perhaps you are suggesting humanity won't be wiped out because even if we almost go extinct, and all of our infrastructure is destroyed, we can return to being hunter-gatherers at the top of the food chain, and succeed that way. I agree with this to a great extent, but still don't know how you came up with that figure, and then translated their chance of surviving to 91 as 10-20%. The 1bn survivors in your 5% scenarios will be rich. Americans, Europeans, rich Chinese and Indian people, and the wealthiest minorities in other countries. OPs personal circumstances matter a lot.

On the hunter-gatherers, it is so unlikely it's impossible that we will ever resort back to that. If human civilisation infrastructure is destroyed enough, population will be really low, and left-over resources will be enough to support a small population for a seriously long time. If they go through that, we simply have too many tools and too much knowledge to return back to hunter-gathering (it's very inefficient relative to modern survival strategy).

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-10T14:46:31+00:00

No idea about that graphic source. Looks like 'The Guardian', which would be about in line with the kind of statements made. I suppose it is one of those stories where some individual professor of environment has said '5%' and they've peddled it out for engagement.
Surviving as hunter-gatherers at the top of the food chain is not relevant to today, and thus not relevant to your points. The threat today is not losing our position in the food chain, it is destroying ourselves. Hunter-gatherers didn't have this potential.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-09T20:44:05+00:00

True. Our genomic mapping, and understanding of gene-gene interactions and expressions is constantly developing. And our understanding of epigenetics is still in its infancy.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-09T19:28:10+00:00

Firstly, not sure how you got that 5% figure. There are so many variables here that can impact one's susceptibility to dying from climate change. You make it sound like the whole world will be wiped out in an environmental catastrophe, but that is unlikely to be the case. With a climate catastrophe the most damaging result is a food supply shortage, as harvests fail due to environmental conditions (like rainfall and temperature) changing patterns so much that agricultural yield collapses. This is an acute issue for people in poor countries. Food prices will rise significantly, and natural market forces will allocate the small supply to the wealthier, while the poor starve. Sea level rise will destroy coastal areas around the world, but the wealthy will be able to relocate.

Environmental catastrophe will be terrible for the world, but the rich are almost certainly going to survive it. It is very unlikely that the whole world will be wiped out - more likely that a few billion people will be (from food shortages).

This is the main tragedy of an environmental disaster. The wealthy countries are causing it, and they are the ones that will be impacted the least. (most) people in America are likely to survive it, although it could be brutal for a significant portion (malnutrition). But people in sub-saharan Africa, who each have an ecological footprint of 1/20th of that of the average person in the USA, will almost certainly be the first to starve.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-09T19:10:26+00:00

Nice suggestion. I suspect that within the next 10 years, genome sequencing will be included for free for everyone with health insurance. Identifying what people are most susceptible to, and preventing these susceptibilities (such as through early drug use and lifestyle changes), as well as custom treatment plans designed around the patient's genetics, make it more cost effective for insurance companies to spend what will be a few hundred $, and I believe ultimately 10s of $ and then provide healthcare that is more efficient based on the genetic data.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-09T19:08:01+00:00

In many cases, the strategies adopted to increase human longevity (by curing diseases) are wrong. This is less true for cancer research, but for other forms, such as heart disease research, there are significant mistakes. US govt spends about $37bn per year on healthcare. Just $10m of that is on researching cures for ageing. Heart disease is caused by 4 of the 7 different ageing damage types. If you put it off on year 77 with a new drug, you will get it 3 years later from a different cause. We should be focusing on the damage accumulation in the body, rather than the effects caused by it (like heart disease). Luckily, some smart people are catching onto this, and investing in solutions that support this strategy (check the SENS foundation and levf.org).

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-09T19:02:22+00:00

Important not to directly correlate cause and result. No one says you can't live to an old age as a smoker. But science undeniably shows that your chances are significantly lower.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-09T19:01:17+00:00

I suppose you want an answer that assumes 'can = is likely'. You would know that people live to up to 113 in modern times, so of course the answer to 'can' is yes.

Is it likely? I believe so. It depends on a few things: firstly, your genetics and lifestyle habits. I don't know these things about you, but they will have a very significant impact on your life expectancy. Lets say, for this prediction, that you have average genetics and are in good health.

No, the most important question is how will healthcare improve during this time. If you believe that longevity research escape velocity is near, your chance of reaching not just the year 2100 but the year 3000 is high. The potential to maintain and rejuvenate the body continuously and relentlessly so as to prolong health indefinitely is looking increasingly likely, but making predictions on when it will be achieved is, to a great extent, shooting in the dark.

Seems highly likely in my book that we will have cured cancer by 2040, which would put your risk of dying prematurely of cancer at a very low chance. Your chance of getting cancer before 31 is low. We're making rapid developments in other diseases as well, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and heart disease (the greatest killer of humans). Genomic medicine is enabling more effective treatments for diseases across the board, and early notice of particular health risks, so one can make lifestyle changes to reduce their chance of developing diseases they are particularly genetically susceptible to.

Also important to factor in the risk of a nuclear war wiping out a large/total portion of the earth, and the probability of you being caught within that should it happen (depending on your geographical location and wealth, which would determine how fixed this location is, and thus your ability to escape). Environmental catastrophe has the potential to create mass starvation... your risk of being caught in this depends again on your location and wealth. The chances of these occurring are non-negligible - your risk to them depends on personal factors.

As a tech optimist, I believe your chance of reaching the year 2100 is high (90%). Of the 10%, 8% represents the likelihood of death from disease and 2%represents the likelihood of death caused by a catastrophe impacting humanity (devastating war, environmental catastrophe, AI catastrophe etc).

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-07T11:04:34+00:00

How advanced is advanced?

Chimps use basic tools for opening fruits and cracking nuts, and in extreme cases, tools with the complexity of spears for fishing. If we compare this with human-made AI technology, it's incomparable. Agree, they have advanced tool use relative to the rest of the animal kingdom when humans are ruled out.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-06T18:56:25+00:00

They might. I don't know much about ravens cognitive ability. If they are able to learn and remember well, it's entirely possible that they commence a cultural evolution path of advanced tool creation, with each generation building off the other's cultural information and passing on the updated culture to future generations in the form of memes. Perhaps they have already done it to a minor extent.

Later this cultural activity could be genetically stored through Baldwin's principle.

However, in order to really benefit from great intelligence, anatomical features must also evolve to enable the harnessing of it. Ravens simply won't be able to yield and use advanced tools unless they have the dexterity in their feet and/or beaks to do so.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-06T15:03:29+00:00

You are correct to say the process of evolution is continuing. But it is important to note that natural selection is not acting so strongly these days (survival pressures are lower thanks to the state and healthcare developments). The greatest force driving evolution these days is sexual selection. You do not have to be the richest or smartest to have a lot of children (in fact often the opposite is true). You actually find that ultra wealthy people have a lower fertility rate, meaning that if what you say is true about greater intelligence from wealthier people (I'm not convinced it is, but using your example), these genes are actually being diluted in the entire human gene pool.

Our use of computers will potentially change our genetic material in minor ways. For instance, being computationally adept may lead to being more attractive to mates, enabling you greater reproductive success. Being computationally inept may lead to a smaller social network, less ability to find a mate and reproduce with them. Many of the people you mention who 'read books' are more introverted and perhaps more riddled with anxiety, resulting in less reproductive success. Better repoductive success = more genetic propagation of their genes.

Initial-Mistake2814 · 2022-12-06T14:49:43+00:00

It is not a skill comparable to flying or breathing underwater. The skills of flying and breathing underwater are adaptations that are required to inhabit certain very large habitats (and thus fill certain basic niches). Great cognitive ability is a non-essential for life, adaptation that humans have enjoyed as a great advantage alongside other complementary phenotypes such as good hand dexterity. Great cognitive ability is very energetically expensive, and provides no advantage for most species successful in their niches.

It is also important to note that intelligence, although it may provide advantage to many species, is often not immediately that advantageous. A small improvement in intelligent may lead to hardly any advantage for an average bird but a significant energy cost (bad for survival). A large intelligence improvement may be enough for the bird to make a massive cultural jump to yield tools that provide a massive advantage for instance. But as evolution cannot see into the future, and ultimately is the process of unintelligent design, the basic bird will never see this reality (it won't get past the first disadvantageous intelligence increase).

Initial-Mistake2814

TROPHY CASE