Eyesight and Lifespan

I was interested by a recent joke by RT about immortality (he was
basically taking the **** out of the biography of Bates that I posted
a while ago). He and "Brainy" seemed to find it very funny, but I
actually started thinking about it seriously.

Anyway, I have a theory that the better the eyesight is, the longer
you live. Because if you have perfect eyesight then, as Bates
discovered himself, that means you have a mind at rest so that means
the rest of the body stays at peak condition and doesn't get worn out.
A mind at rest means that all the other nerves are at rest.

I sometimes even hear stories about primitives who have been able to
live for 140+ years! I don't know if it's true, but seeing as the
primitives are often said to have remarkable vision, like Bates said I
think it's completely possible and plausible.

I mean, ceteris paragus of course. If a disease or epidemic is
spreading around and one remarks 'no, your theory must be wrong
because they all died even though they had super eyesight' then that
would be unreasonable and illogical. You have to keep your argument
considering all other factors present, otherwise it would be flawed.

So all other things equal, what do you guys think about it?

Is there any real statistics to back my theory up, or am I talking
crap?

Yeah! Moses! I knew that too!
Something else I forgot to mention in my first post is that there are
accounts of people from earlier civilization who could live to exceed
500 years! (According to my friend, anyhow)

Is there any scientific or historical method we could use to confirm
this? Like, using carbon 14 Half Life or something? (I can't remember
what that technology does, but I think it could be used to measure how
long something dated back using radiation emissions or something)

Also, since we're on the subject of lifespan, I think the record
holder today is a Japanese guy, and he claims to be 143 year old (but
people are unsure if he's telling the truth!).

Not sure about his eyesight though.
I'd guess he has bloody remarkable acuity.

>Why concern yourself with proof now when you've come so far without it?

Simple.

Fact is a truth that can already be demonstrated, and needs no proof
for its confirmation.

Theory does.

On Apr 1, 8:08*pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Why concern yourself with proof now when you've come so far without it?
>
> Simple.
>
> Fact is a truth that can already be demonstrated, and needs no proof
> for its confirmation.
>
> Theory does.


Wow, it's only April and we may have a winner in the most retarded
post contest. Congratulations.

It's not 'only April'. It's APRIL FOOLS!

Oh wait, it's the second today.
Darn.

Anyway, you are the one who deserves the great congratulations,
friend!
I mean, I was not aware of any 'most retarded post contest'. But you
seem quite emphatic about it. Maybe you've been competing in it for
too long, or something.

Zetsu wrote:
> It's not 'only April'. It's APRIL FOOLS!
>
> Oh wait, it's the second today.
> Darn.
>
> Anyway, you are the one who deserves the great congratulations,
> friend!
> I mean, I was not aware of any 'most retarded post contest'. But you
> seem quite emphatic about it. Maybe you've been competing in it for
> too long, or something.

emphatic. competing? are you sure you know what they mean? i love it
when you try to be clever because it just completely backfires on you
and makes you look like an even bigger 'tard!

it's a preposterous supposition to suggest that the awareness of
something includes its involvement!

haha

you say you weren't aware of any content? why would someone without a
brain be aware of anything?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.

I know what 'emphatic', and 'competing' mean.
Emphatic is the state of being keen for something.
Competing is where individuals go against each other in order to
'win' (a game, race, etc.) by surpassing the others.

Content? Aware? Are you referring to Bates' biography?

I didn't write the biography, Rishi did. But, it got messed up in the
translation from italian to english (that's why it sounds a little
strange).

What are you talking about, trying to be clever? Backfires on me? HuH?
Please can you explain that?

Oh, I've figured out what you're saying now...

Yeah, spammer took the mick out of me, so I had the prerogative to
return the favour! People who continually call other people retards
(like spammer) are often just covering up their own mental backward-
ness...

As for me trying to sound clever, I think there's nothing wrong with
that... unl3ss u w4nt me 2 talk lyk this...

>it's a preposterous supposition to suggest that the awareness of
>something includes its involvement!

I don't think it's preposterous at all.
Awareness of something often does include its involvement.

If you are 'aware' that Xbox 360 has come out, you are likely to get
out and buy it.

It's the very principle that 'ADVERTISEMENT' is based on.

Zetsu wrote:
> Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
>
> I know what 'emphatic', and 'competing' mean.
> Emphatic is the state of being keen for something.
> Competing is where individuals go against each other in order to
> 'win' (a game, race, etc.) by surpassing the others.

Good. You can read a dictionary. I doubt you actually know what they
"mean" though.

>
> Content? Aware? Are you referring to Bates' biography?

Sorry. I meant contest, of which I guess following Bates is like a
contest where the majority are losers.

> What are you talking about, trying to be clever? Backfires on me? HuH?
> Please can you explain that?

Yes... thought so...