The correct amount of rest is the amount you wouldn’t dare admit to anybody. And may not be able to afford to take.
My first instinct was to call this a repost as I remember seeing this like 4 years ago on reddit but this is a different platform altogether.
Though it Is worth the reminder to Treat yo self
Its work
Working, in the way that we do, takes years off of our lives and ruins the quality of life of people in their final years too.
I mean, its a meme and the message is put across very well but, for me, an important distinction for the comments section is that wealth increases life, as much as, if not more than poverty decreases it. Its wealth specifically and not wages too. After a certain point, increased wages actually have an inverse effect on lifespan which I’m sure comes as no surprise to anyone and the reason is both self explanatory and further supports what I’m saying.
Just so its been said, wealth, in these instances, refers to capital that makes you money. More specifically, wealth gives you money from NOT from working.
The exact point at which life expectancy and QoL increases is always around the exact level of wealth and passive income someone would need to drastically lower their working hours or stop completely.
A second argument: women live longer than men. There are some biological factors for this, such as oestrogen being a vasodilator etc. However, it wasn’t really enough to explain the differences we were seeing.
The thing is, this unexplained gap has started getting smaller and smaller. Now, unless there’s been a fundamental change in the average womans physiology recently, only one thing has changed in our society to the extent that it could effect something like this. Its also filtering through at around the exact time it should be, were the trend to be caused work.
Nothing else reconciles all of the positions, let alone so perfectly and in one single stroke.
Edit: so many typos
Its work
Working, in the way that we do, takes years off of our lives and ruins the quality of life of people in their final years too.
Work has never been so unstressful, if you look back at the history of mankind.
Industrialization killed workers with 60 hour shifts in unsafe environments. Middle ages made you work 18 hours a day once you were 7 and made you starve if the harvest was bad. In the stone age your family died from hunger after you got killed on the hunt.
Life expectancy was never as high as today.
And yet, we actually have the capacity now to provide for everyone’s needs without working anyone to death.
So why don’t we?
Capitalism unfortunately
So you agree your comment is irrelevant?
In this case all comments are irrelevant? What makes you think the comment I commented on is relevant, but mine isn’t? What’s the difference?
If one comment is irrelevant, it’s yours right now, because it didn’t add any thought or value to the topic.
Work has never been so unstressful, if you look back at the history of mankind.
I agree that it was even worse before. Although, I’m a little puzzled as to what point is being made. Are you agreeing with me or not? I can’t tell.
Industrialization killed workers with 60 hour shifts in unsafe environments. Middle ages made you work 18 hours a day once you were 7 and made you starve if the harvest was bad. In the stone age your family died from hunger after you got killed on the hunt.
Life expectancy was never as high as today.
Looking back at what I wrote, what point is all this agreeing with or refuting?
To me, it seems like you’re arguing that the passage of time is a good thing. I don’t remember saying that the passage of time wasn’t good.
Do I have to agree or disagree? I just pointed out that work today isn’t worse than yesterday.
You would have to define how you’re using “have to” here. I mean, I wouldn’t try to come and attack you for neither agreeing not disagreeing with a subject you still managed to have such strong a need to inject in.
Partly because you might be bigger than me but mostly because I generally only see doing that as soemthing I strongly frown upon, in even the most severe of cases. I’m not particularly keen on forcing people to do anything, in fact.
Really, though only you can answer that question.
I’m glad we agree that our lives are probably better now than they for the people who literally had to live in caves, thousands of years ago, though. Thank you for including that important point.
I know I posted this before, but it’s an important reminder.
Please repost regularly, we shan’t forget.
I always say that the most damage my health took was not from drinking and smoking excessively - the most damage came from the stress of a defunct childhood and the subsequent lifestyle.
Yeah, know what you mean.
Along the same theoretical lines, it seems plausible to me that the inner stresses of being an asshole might do the same thing. So maybe there’s some justice in the world after all.
I would like to believe this, unfortunately the large number of very old assholes seems to indicate otherwise.
I think the trick is not caring that you are one and probably believing you are always right, everyone else doesn’t matter and that you are the center of the universe, so that the side effects really don’t apply to you because that’s your reality no remorse to dwell on.
You think you hate being around them, they have to be around them all the time. They lose if they live a long or a short time.
…shorter ? can one be outlived by their asshole ?
I’d love to see the bibliography from that elective
it’s not encouraging to think of someone being in med school and not reading the course description before signing up. if there was no course description that’s almost even worse
As someone who teaches chemistry to premeds, this is not surprising at all. To make a sweeping generalization, premeds, med students, and the MDs they become are some of the most entitled, condescending, and oblivious people I’ve ever met.
There are exceptions of course, but in general, I can’t stand most premeds and I really can’t stand how our culture puts MDs on a pedestal.
yea, a friend of mine from high school went through all of it and became a general surgeon. and i’ve heard stories. that and my experience from dating and living with a CFer lung transplant patient probably gave me as much of an “outsider’s view” of the medical/hospital industry as one could possibly have
the MD=pedestal thing died for me long ago
i know i’m not talking about the “point” of the post. don’t care.
So I’m curious. The way I see it, the actual practicing of medicine doesn’t advance the field itself. What advances it is research and development. Do the researchers actually go though med school or is that path more like biology PhD, chemistry PhD, etc?
There are medical researchers that have MD’s, but they are not practicing physicians (usually). There are MD/PhD programs that are aimed toward medical research fields (usually with the PhD being in biology or chemistry as you mentioned), and lots of biological and biomedical engineers working on certain medical fields as well (especially using stem cells and other chemical cues to regrow tissues). So yeah, biology- and physiology-adjacent sciences are where most of the actual advances are happening.
Actually practicing medicine is basically like being a mechanic that specializes in keeping one particularly poorly designed piece of equipment running.
So was a wrong, most researchers go through MD/PhD programs? Like what percent of researchers go through medical school? 50/50?
I don’t know that you’re wrong, because those MD/PhD programs are exceptionally demanding (but are a good way to avoid med school debt for some). It’s more that even for pure MD’s, research is a very, very different career path than practicing physician. I think researchers still have to go through residency, but after that they’re mostly designing and arranging clinical trials, writing grants, interacting with related university departments, etc.
So, you know, research stuff rather than patient stuff.
edit: to address your actual question, I have no idea what the numbers for each path look like. A lot of those fields get so interrelated that it probably depend a lot on how you define “medical research.” Does genetics count? Genomics? Biomedical engineering, definitely, but what about the material scientists that develop the new dental polymers? It all gets pretty hazy when you drill down on specifics
Edit 2: I also suppose I should say that my experience with science research is almost entirely in public/university research from about a decade back, so current private sector research could vary a lot from my experience. I don’t think it’s that different though, given what I’ve heard from friends and coworkers.
