19 extra years of life [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Brother Oni

2012-09-25, 09:02 AM

The problem is, to obtain this extended lifespan, you have to be castrated prior to puberty.

For certain people, this would be an attractive option. For the large majority of males who express an interest in physical relationships, the price might be a little high, especially since they have to make the choice before they even get interested in girls (or boys, depending on their preference).

I personally wouldn't take the option, not least due to the other side effects (reduced physical strength), but the extra 19 years would seem like insult to injury after the normal three-score-and-ten without physical intimacy. :smalltongue:

I wouldn't get so worked up over it, myself. Purely correlational data using a non-randomized data set. The article doesn't mention anything about sample size, so we can assume that it was abysmally small.

A quick bit of research indicates there were 140 eunuchs who served in the palace during the 518 years of the Chosun Dynasty, so I wouldn't really say it was abysmally small.

I would also point out that by virtue of what they are, there's not going to be any genetic bias from ancestor to descendant. The fact that three of these 140 lived longer than 100 is notable, even with their privileged status (for reference, modern day South Korea has 1.92 centenarians per 10,000).

Dusk Eclipse

2012-09-25, 09:02 AM

Not really, I mean if it extended the time I would be in my physical prime maybe... and a really big one; but from what I understood that isn't the case.

Winter_Wolf

2012-09-25, 09:39 AM

Oh hell no.

It's not how long one lives, but how well. Something like that would really, really reduce my quality of life.

Yora

2012-09-25, 11:07 AM

I personally wouldn't take the option, not least due to the other side effects (reduced physical strength), but the extra 19 years would seem like insult to injury after the normal three-score-and-ten without physical intimacy. :smalltongue:
There are and have always been men with injuries who have been doing reasonably well. They just don't talk about it, because people don't want to hear it.

Not really, I mean if it extended the time I would be in my physical prime maybe... and a really big one; but from what I understood that isn't the case.
A harsh sounding trouth we've often been talking about when I was working in a nursing home is that "old people don't create big healthcare costs. Dying people do". Drastically declining health starts usually at the last leg of life, regardless of how old you actually are. If you make it to 100, you most likely did very well with 90.

And yes, the sample group is terribly biased. It's based on records of the royal court where eunuchs were highly previliged people. That distorts the entire data.

TSGames

2012-09-25, 11:08 AM

Oh hell no.

It's not how long one lives, but how well. Something like that would really, really reduce my quality of life.

Well said, sir.

dps

2012-09-25, 11:14 AM

There are and have always been men with injuries who have been doing reasonably well. They just don't talk about it, because people don't want to hear it.

Well, lots of blind people do well too, but just because someone who lost their eyesight in an accident is able to adjust isn't a good reason for the rest of us to deliberately gouge our eyes out.

Yora

2012-09-25, 11:19 AM

I am speaking of the notion that people with limited sexual ability are lacking any kind of sexuality.

CoffeeIncluded

2012-09-25, 11:21 AM

Oh hell no.

It's not how long one lives, but how well. Something like that would really, really reduce my quality of life.

Agreed, a hundred percent. What's the point of living if you can't enjoy it?

Brother Oni

2012-09-25, 11:32 AM

I am speaking of the notion that people with limited sexual ability are lacking any kind of sexuality.

I suppose my post could be interpreted that way, but that definitely wasn't the intent.

I just thought that the large majority of males would decline the procedure due to the perceived drop in quality of life would not be worth the extended life span according to their personal cost/value assessment.

I made no notion with regard to people with limited sexual ability.

Agreed, a hundred percent. What's the point of living if you can't enjoy it?

Derailing the thread slightly, how many people would make this sort of sacrifice, not for personal gain, but for a greater purpose?

If I were given the same choice as the eunuchs of the Chosun, I probably would make it.
The opportunity to serve my liege-lord, the country and my fellow citizens, not to mention giving the rest of my family a comfortable living for my (extended) lifespan - that is a lot more attractive than just being able to live for a dozen or so years longer.

Dr.Epic

2012-09-25, 11:53 AM

No. Not worth it at all.

Kneenibble

2012-09-25, 11:59 AM

How can I say this without being graphic?

If you remove the clip, but not the barrel, you can still have fun shooting even if you won't fire bullets.

hmm, not my best work.

That being said, there's the danger that I'd wind up flabby and listless rather than slim, hairless, and beautiful. I'm not sure if I could take that risk.

Bulldog Psion

2012-09-25, 01:03 PM

Well, assuming we've all hit puberty, it's too late anyway, even if they're correct.

And the sample is so small that it's ridiculous. One thing that they didn't consider, for example, is that the short-lived royalty and nobles they were talking about were probably war leaders and involved in combat. The eunuchs, having been castrated prior to puberty, lacked aggression, therefore made lousy battlefield participants, therefore never risked catching an arrow with their eye socket.

There's just one quick but, IMO, effective criticism of the so-called "study".

Mewtarthio

2012-09-25, 01:35 PM

And the sample is so small that it's ridiculous. One thing that they didn't consider, for example, is that the short-lived royalty and nobles they were talking about were probably war leaders and involved in combat. The eunuchs, having been castrated prior to puberty, lacked aggression, therefore made lousy battlefield participants, therefore never risked catching an arrow with their eye socket.

There's just one quick but, IMO, effective criticism of the so-called "study".

Even disregarding violent death, look at one of those Before/After pictures of US Presidents. Notice how four years of executive power makes them wither away to hollow shells. Now imagine running a country your entire life. Frankly, if your monarchs aren't half-dead from stress, they're probably incompetent slackers, and should be deposed as soon as it's convenient.

Morph Bark

2012-09-25, 01:36 PM

The sample case is still too small, even with 140 of them, especially since it might be important to figure out at what age they lost their balls.

Otherwise we might as well start asking any man no longer capable of producing children. Just in case. Especially in India and China.

dps

2012-09-25, 01:44 PM

Well, assuming we've all hit puberty, it's too late anyway, even if they're correct.

Yeah.

Now if you could be 85 years old and on the brink of death, and could get snipped and then live another 19 healthy years, that might be something somebody would go for. But having to make the decision before hitting puberty? That's an easy "no".

Chainsaw Hobbit

2012-09-25, 01:51 PM

I would never do that. I maybe would have when I was 12, but not now. Despite the problems that they cause.

Knaight

2012-09-25, 01:54 PM

Yeah.

Now if you could be 85 years old and on the brink of death, and could get snipped and then live another 19 healthy years, that might be something somebody would go for. But having to make the decision before hitting puberty? That's an easy "no".

More to the point, there's the question of whether a child would even be allowed to make this decision, and whether it would be a good idea to allow it. When tattoos and such usually require being at least 16, that seems unlikely, as such it doesn't particularly matter what people's answers are to whether they would want it now or not. Plus, the study is a huge mess anyways.

That said, if the 19 year figure were actually legitimate, and the need to be prepubescent were removed, I'd be all over this. I don't particularly care how long I end up living, but even then another two decades for virtually no price (minor issues with muscle development, maintenance, etc.) sounds good to me.

golentan

2012-09-25, 02:06 PM

I don't think I'd take it up. I'm a dopamine junky, and my nethers are my biggest source for my fix. Nothing wrong with it per se, but I just don't like the idea of giving it up personally, even if I would probably retain some functionality.

Now, there's a solution that came up in a Varley novel I'd leap at. Get snipped, but take testosterone in pill form to develop properly and then to get that burst when you need it. No chance of getting someone pregnant (which I want to avoid), many of the benefits of being castrated, and still keep the ability to pursue my dopamine surges on a regular basis.

Chainsaw Hobbit

2012-09-25, 02:10 PM

More to the point, there's the question of whether a child would even be allowed to make this decision, and whether it would be a good idea to allow it. When tattoos and such usually require being at least 16, that seems unlikely, as such it doesn't particularly matter what people's answers are to whether they would want it now or not. Plus, the study is a huge mess anyways.

That said, if the 19 year figure were actually legitimate, and the need to be prepubescent were removed, I'd be all over this. I don't particularly care how long I end up living, but even then another two decades for virtually no price (minor issues with muscle development, maintenance, etc.) sounds good to me.

Really? You would give up a piece of your being and personality for two decades of life?

pendell

2012-09-25, 02:10 PM

1) Agreed that it's a ridiculously small sample size. Still useful for a what-if discussion piece on an internet forum :).

2) The prebuscent bit is a problem -- a person at that age isn't ready to make that kind of lifelong decision, and we couldn't trust anyone else to make it for them. It'd be one thing for a rational adult to make a decision of this sort, but it'd be a terrible thing to inflict on a minor , even with their consent. It's the same logic as for statutory rape -- a person at that age simply doesn't have the experience in life necessary to give informed consent to an operation of this sort.

3) It's not just the recreational aspects -- it also means a person will not be able to have natural children. If they ever change their mind, they'll have to adopt or use artificial means. It's a decision which may look one way to a ten year old and quite another to a thirty year old who starts thinking about the next generation.

4)

That said, if the 19 year figure were actually legitimate, and the need to be prepubescent were removed, I'd be all over this. I don't particularly care how long I end up living, but even then another two decades for virtually no price (minor issues with muscle development, maintenance, etc.) sounds good to me.

Seconded. I've been on both sides of the fence. I enjoyed prebuscent life a great deal more than post-pubescent life, with the occasional need to bang my head on a tree to stop the distraction.

There's a lot more to life than sex. Yes, it is the greatest physical pleasure. But there are other pleasures which have less cost and longer-term benefits. Not to mention that you can cut all the birth control and other costs out of the budget because none of that is an issue any more.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Bulldog Psion

2012-09-25, 02:17 PM

golentan

2012-09-25, 02:21 PM

Really? You would give up a piece of your being and personality for two decades of life?

That seems to be putting it a bit extremely. It's a physical function, and not necessarily a character defining one. There's no reason someone should be unwilling to give it up if they judge the benefits greater than the cost.

Then again, I'm always struck by how tightly humans cling to their physical and mental identities. I've yet to meet someone who says they would voluntarily alter their memories or core personality traits.

Chainsaw Hobbit

2012-09-25, 02:25 PM

That seems to be putting it a bit extremely. It's a physical function, and not necessarily a character defining one. There's no reason someone should be unwilling to give it up if they judge the benefits greater than the cost.

Then again, I'm always struck by how tightly humans cling to their physical and mental identities. I've yet to meet someone who says they would voluntarily alter their memories or core personality traits.

I disagree. Sexuality is a core part aspect of the human body and mind. To sever that for longer life would be to sacrifice a piece of one's self.

noparlpf

2012-09-25, 02:28 PM

But is it worth the cost (http://news.discovery.com/human/castrated-men-live-longer-120924.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1)?

What do you think? For myself ... um, probably yeah. It'd be nice not to have this constant hormonal distraction and leave more time for video games :).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Nah. It's not like I use 'em for much, but I do need them to finish growing a beard.

Chainsaw Hobbit

2012-09-25, 02:35 PM

But is it worth the cost (http://news.discovery.com/human/castrated-men-live-longer-120924.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1)?

What do you think? For myself ... um, probably yeah. It'd be nice not to have this constant hormonal distraction and leave more time for video games :).

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Video Games? You wouldn't be able to enjoy Tomb Raider anymore, but you would be better at it, because you would have a second hand to play it with. :smalltongue:

Aliquid

2012-09-25, 02:38 PM

3) It's not just the recreational aspects -- it also means a person will not be able to have natural children. If they ever change their mind, they'll have to adopt or use artificial means. It's a decision which may look one way to a ten year old and quite another to a thirty year old who starts thinking about the next generation.

I agree, and I find it interesting that most comments are completely missing this aspect of the equation. Having kids is a great joy that you would be missing.

noparlpf

2012-09-25, 02:45 PM

That seems to be putting it a bit extremely. It's a physical function, and not necessarily a character defining one. There's no reason someone should be unwilling to give it up if they judge the benefits greater than the cost.

Then again, I'm always struck by how tightly humans cling to their physical and mental identities. I've yet to meet someone who says they would voluntarily alter their memories or core personality traits.

I'd be more willing to make a change to past-me than the present-me, if such a thing were possible. If past-me changed, present-me wouldn't exist anyway, so it's not like I'd be killing present-me. There are several memories and core personality traits I wouldn't be all that hesitant to change, though.
But then, I hardly count as human by most accounts. Ask anyone. I'm a black square.

pendell

2012-09-25, 03:04 PM

Nah. It's not like I use 'em for much, but I do need them to finish growing a beard.

A black square has a beard?

Puzzled,

Brian P.

dps

2012-09-25, 03:06 PM

Thought it might be worthwhile to point out a bit of medical information that maybe everybody posting here doen't quite realize--several posters, including myself, have used the term "getting snipped" or something close to it in this thread. That term is sometimes used informally to refer to getting a vasectomy, but getting a vasectomy and being castrated aren't exactly the same thing, so "getting snipped" might not be entirely appropriate terminology.

Kneenibble

2012-09-25, 03:08 PM

I agree, and I find it interesting that most comments are completely missing this aspect of the equation. Having kids is a great joy that you would be missing.

Being gay, I've been almost completely excluded from that aspect already. Being an uncle to six nephieces niecephews, I'm already aware that I'm missing a great joy.

Morph Bark

2012-09-25, 03:17 PM

That said, if the 19 year figure were actually legitimate, and the need to be prepubescent were removed, I'd be all over this. I don't particularly care how long I end up living, but even then another two decades for virtually no price (minor issues with muscle development, maintenance, etc.) sounds good to me.

Prettymuch. If I were to hit 65 or something, I'd do it for the extra years, at least if I were in good condition. Besides, the most important bits to have pleasure are still there.

noparlpf

2012-09-25, 03:23 PM

A black square has a beard?

Puzzled,

Brian P.

It's also black, so you can't see it. :b

Brother Oni

2012-09-25, 07:18 PM

There's just one quick but, IMO, effective criticism of the so-called "study".

The article is a rather short precis of the actual paper, but it does mention possible lifestyle differences having an effect further down the paper (the eunuchs were administrators rather than war leaders though, so were more likely to avoid battlefield situations).

The paper is published in a peer reviewed journal (Current Biology) and is also available: Abstract (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2812%2900712-9); PDF link (http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212007129.pdf?intermediate=true).

Skimming over the paper, it certainly doesn't seem like an half-arsed study and they intend to investigate further into the Ottoman and Chinese cultures to see if their results hold true.

The interesting part is that it notes the entirely palace bound (so no chance of violent death or warfare)male members of the royal family only lived 47.0 ± 3.21 years (for kings) and 45.0 ± 2.79 years (for other male relatives), while the 81 eunuchs identified out of the 381 listed in the records, lived to 70.0 ± 1.76 years, with 3 living over 100.
They also do some lifespan comparisons with contemporary Korean men from three separate families of similar social status. with much better sample numbers (1126, 1414 and 49 individuals) and found the eunuchs also lived longer than them.

The paper also proposes a biological mechanism as to why these castrated men live for longer and checking the paper's author, Kyung Jin Min (http://eng.inha.ac.kr/acade/NaturalSciences_Medical_Science.asp?code=ZVB63Y&pGubun2=faculty&prSrchType=detail), suggests he specialises in cellular biology, which would indicate some prior knowledge on the precise developmental effects of testosterone, thus I think this paper is more a historical fact finding mission to support current scientific understanding on the nature and role of testosterone on the longevity of male humans, rather than an 'OMG! Castration makes you live longer!' piece of sensationalist science.

Perhaps you would like to revise your criticism on this 'so-called "study" ' [sic], which both doesn't draw solid conclusions and suggests further study to reinforce its findings, like any good research paper should?

Plus, the study is a huge mess anyways.

May I ask what you regard is so messy about the study? Admittedly, it's all based on off a single source, but it's been cross referenced with two other contemporary independent sources: (Link (http://download.cell.com/current-biology/mmcs/journals/0960-9822/PIIS0960982212007129.mmc1.pdf)).

Get snipped, but take testosterone in pill form to develop properly and then to get that burst when you need it. No chance of getting someone pregnant (which I want to avoid), many of the benefits of being castrated, and still keep the ability to pursue my dopamine surges on a regular basis.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.
The reason why the eunuchs live longer is because they don't have testosterone to affect their development. Taking supplementary testosterone to maintain normal development would defeat the point of getting castrated in the first place.

Traab

2012-09-25, 07:48 PM

I dislike the idea because to me it seems like the jump from, being castrated makes you live longer, is going a bit far. Is it actually being castrated thats the solution? or is it the physical and mental changes it causes? If it boils down to "those with less aggression live longer." then getting castrated is just one way to achieve the results. If it is specifically the physiological changes getting castrated before puberty causes, and cant be replicated in some other way, that is a different kettle of fish.

Rockphed

2012-09-25, 08:23 PM

Even disregarding violent death, look at one of those Before/After pictures of US Presidents. Notice how four years of executive power makes them wither away to hollow shells. Now imagine running a country your entire life. Frankly, if your monarchs aren't half-dead from stress, they're probably incompetent slackers, and should be deposed as soon as it's convenient.

There are only 4, maybe 5 former presidents of the US alive. I have no idea how other world leaders fare, though the Queen of England is rather old. She has somewhat less power than a president though. Power may or may not corrupt, but it definitely is a burden.

I dislike the idea because to me it seems like the jump from, being castrated makes you live longer, is going a bit far. Is it actually being castrated thats the solution? or is it the physical and mental changes it causes? If it boils down to "those with less aggression live longer." then getting castrated is just one way to achieve the results. If it is specifically the physiological changes getting castrated before puberty causes, and cant be replicated in some other way, that is a different kettle of fish.

Yeah, I think it might be a bit spurious to try assigning direct cause to their effect. However, 140 samples is enough for a "hmmm, that's funny", so this isn't just a hogwash story that the press threw up to attract attention without any base. It might not be enough for a definitive statement, especially after you throw eunuch armies into the mix, but it could be interesting.

Traab

2012-09-25, 08:26 PM

Yeah, I think it might be a bit spurious to try assigning direct cause to their effect. However, 140 samples is enough for a "hmmm, that's funny", so this isn't just a hogwash story that the press threw up to attract attention without any base. It might not be enough for a definitive statement, especially after you throw eunuch armies into the mix, but it could be interesting.

Oh, im not saying the results are wrong, I just think they may have jumped to the wrong conclusion, or at least made one that cant be confirmed without a lot of careful testing. Clearly these eunuchs lived longer for some reason, but was it because of their lifestyle choice? Meaning if I went to a buddist temple and spent my life meditating and remaining calm 24/7, would I tend to live longer than other people? Or is it specifically the hormone and other body chemistry changes? And if so, is castration really the only way to make it happen?

Knaight

2012-09-25, 09:25 PM

Really? You would give up a piece of your being and personality for two decades of life?

In this case? Yes. If it were a finger or something I wouldn't, if it were a toenail or a bit of hair I would, and when it comes to personality I'd call hair more significant.

Haruki-kun

2012-09-25, 09:45 PM

No, sorry. Not worth it at all. I'd rather live well and happily, and extra 19 years like this won't be worth it.

Traab

2012-09-25, 10:16 PM

No, sorry. Not worth it at all. I'd rather live well and happily, and extra 19 years like this won't be worth it.

Now, to this I have to say, doesnt the process basically require you to lose it before you are old enough to use it? Or even WANT to use it? After its gone, you wont even have the desire to do so. Or at least it will be greatly reduced. So where is the lack of happiness when your body wont even be fully aware of what it has lost and wont miss it? I can see it being a huge deal if at the age of 24 you get little willy trimmed, but before puberty? I honestly dont know.

dps

2012-09-26, 12:38 AM

Now, to this I have to say, doesnt the process basically require you to lose it before you are old enough to use it? Or even WANT to use it? After its gone, you wont even have the desire to do so. Or at least it will be greatly reduced. So where is the lack of happiness when your body wont even be fully aware of what it has lost and wont miss it? I can see it being a huge deal if at the age of 24 you get little willy trimmed, but before puberty? I honestly dont know.

Your body might not be fully aware of the loss, but your mind would be.

golentan

2012-09-26, 02:02 AM

Your body might not be fully aware of the loss, but your mind would be.

I don't think so. People are terrible at understanding what they haven't personally experienced. So while you'd be aware you were missing something, you wouldn't know what you were missing.

@Brother Oni: I wasn't thinking "maintain normal development" so much as "provide the chemical oomph for a given recreational act when it comes up."

Brother Oni

2012-09-26, 02:11 AM

Oh, im not saying the results are wrong, I just think they may have jumped to the wrong conclusion, or at least made one that cant be confirmed without a lot of careful testing.

Actually they appear to be investigating the effects of testosterone on male longevity and this particular group made the unusual step of checking historical records of eunuchs for this part of their investigation.
Interestingly enough, they mention that castrato singers don't have improved longevity over other singers, so they note that something funny's going on.

They had some data, reported on it, now they're off to find some more historical data (the eunuchs of the Ottoman and Chinese dynasties). They just started with the Korean as I believe it's the author's native language.

Clearly these eunuchs lived longer for some reason, but was it because of their lifestyle choice? Meaning if I went to a buddist temple and spent my life meditating and remaining calm 24/7, would I tend to live longer than other people? Or is it specifically the hormone and other body chemistry changes? And if so, is castration really the only way to make it happen?

For the first question, they contend it may be an issue, but they compared the lifespan of the eunuchs to other men of similar social status of the time and also to other palace bound male members of the royal family - the eunuchs still lived longer.

The third and fourth question are linked - this group believes it's linked to testosterone and the developmental effects it has, not to mention the immune and cardiovascular effects.
While castration is the most effective way, modern methods that disable testosterone production would also work. That method wouldn't have been available to the eunuchs of the Choson dynasty though (their initial method was daubing the child's genitals in excrement and getting a dog to chew them off, although as the eunuchs' role became more important, they developed better surgical techniques).

@Brother Oni: I wasn't thinking "maintain normal development" so much as "provide the chemical oomph for a given recreational act when it comes up."

As dps mentioned, 'getting snipped' isn't the right terminology and depending on the level of castration, you probably won't have sufficient remaining equipment for the chemical boost to have an effect on.

However I agree with Kneenibble that possession of equipment isn't necessary to enjoy the act, although I contend it would be somewhat frustrating to never be able to achieve release of the tension.

Morph Bark

2012-09-26, 02:15 AM

Now, to this I have to say, doesnt the process basically require you to lose it before you are old enough to use it? Or even WANT to use it? After its gone, you wont even have the desire to do so. Or at least it will be greatly reduced. So where is the lack of happiness when your body wont even be fully aware of what it has lost and wont miss it? I can see it being a huge deal if at the age of 24 you get little willy trimmed, but before puberty? I honestly dont know.

I see where you're coming from, yeah. Though on the other hand, in a way, they'd basically be making an uninformed choice.

Traab

2012-09-26, 07:19 AM

I see where you're coming from, yeah. Though on the other hand, in a way, they'd basically be making an uninformed choice.

Yeah, thats the rub there isnt it? Even if this was proven as true, and specifically castration causes you to live 19 extra years on average, would most governments allow either a child thats less than 12 to make that choice? Hell no. Would they allow the parents to make that choice for their kids? I mean heck, there is enough controversy over circumcision, I cant even imagine the firestorm of controversy over gelding your kid.

Tyndmyr

2012-09-26, 10:31 AM

A harsh sounding trouth we've often been talking about when I was working in a nursing home is that "old people don't create big healthcare costs. Dying people do". Drastically declining health starts usually at the last leg of life, regardless of how old you actually are. If you make it to 100, you most likely did very well with 90.

This is, of course, true. It gets drug up a lot in immortality discussions...but realistically, anything that extends aging is going to do so by fixing the problems that make us die(or at least, delaying them). Doing so is pretty much going to make your life before then suck less. It can't really work any other way.

And yes, the sample group is terribly biased. It's based on records of the royal court where eunuchs were highly previliged people. That distorts the entire data.

This is also true. The sample size isn't huge(140 still has a pretty big error rate when you're trying to extrapolate to humanity)...and has at least one known source of bias. However, the article did also have a more recent sample set that was mentioned(and was a 13 year difference, in Kansas). Of course, we have other biases possibly in play there, and no mention of the sample size.

The proposed mechanism is reasonable, but the tradeoff is harsh. Still, it'd be useful to see if there's a way to gain some of the benefits without jumping all the way to castration(perhaps by managing the level of hormones, you can get some of the bennies).

snoopy13a

2012-09-26, 02:15 PM

Interestingly enough, they mention that castrato singers don't have improved longevity over other singers, so they note that something funny's going on.

Perhaps the castrato singers were from lower social-classes, on average, than their "intact" tenor, baritone, and bass counterparts? Thus, the castratos who didn't become famous were very poor, which would lead to a lower life-span?

Here's the Wikipedia article on castrato singers; it is somewhat interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrato

Slipperychicken

2012-10-01, 09:24 AM

...... No.

EDIT: It's always nice to come to the Friendly Banter forum. Things like this to give you perspective on how some guys don't like having junk.

Ravens_cry

2012-10-02, 01:53 AM

I wonder if the longer life span also came from the fact they wouldn't be as involved in the genetic politics and warfare that other nobles would be.
Frankly, it's really a terrible sample to try and draw much general conclusions from.

Brother Oni

2012-10-02, 02:06 AM

:smallsigh:

I know I work in pharmaceutics and hence have been involved in science for pretty much all my working life, but scientific papers can't be that hard to read, can they?

Ravens_cry

2012-10-02, 02:10 AM

:smallsigh:

I know I work in pharmaceutics and hence have been involved in science for pretty much all my working life, but scientific papers can't be that hard to read, can they?
Depends on the subject and level and type of education of the people doing the reading and the writing.

ArlEammon

2012-10-02, 02:11 AM

The problem is, to obtain this extended lifespan, you have to be castrated prior to puberty.

For certain people, this would be an attractive option. For the large majority of males who express an interest in physical relationships, the price might be a little high, especially since they have to make the choice before they even get interested in girls (or boys, depending on their preference).

I personally wouldn't take the option, not least due to the other side effects (reduced physical strength), but the extra 19 years would seem like insult to injury after the normal three-score-and-ten without physical intimacy. :smalltongue:

A quick bit of research indicates there were 140 eunuchs who served in the palace during the 518 years of the Chosun Dynasty, so I wouldn't really say it was abysmally small.

I would also point out that by virtue of what they are, there's not going to be any genetic bias from ancestor to descendant. The fact that three of these 140 lived longer than 100 is notable, even with their privileged status (for reference, modern day South Korea has 1.92 centenarians per 10,000).

The Prophet Daniel, from the Old Testament, was said to live to be incredibly old. I hope that isn't why, although some have concluded that yes, one of the greatest men in history was a eunuch. :(:smalleek:

Brother Oni

2012-10-02, 02:47 AM

Depends on the subject and level and type of education of the people doing the reading and the writing.

How about the paper we're currently discussing? Link (http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212007129.pdf?intermediate=true).

It doesn't require any specialised knowledge as far as I can tell, just a basic understanding of statistics and confidence in the team's research of the source materials.
I'm more than happy to be proved wrong if you feel it requires more indepth knowledge than that possessed by the average layman.

The Prophet Daniel, from the Old Testament, was said to live to be incredibly old. I hope that isn't why, although some have concluded that yes, one of the greatest men in history was a eunuch. :(:smalleek:

Edit: Sorry, but I think board rules prevent me from touching that with a 10' pole.

ArlEammon

2012-10-02, 02:54 AM

Edit: Sorry, but I think board rules prevent me from touching that with a 10' pole.

I'm speaking from the historical aspect, I do not mean to mention anything spiritual.

Mikhailangelo

2012-10-02, 02:54 AM

Oh hell no.

It's not how long one lives, but how well. Something like that would really, really reduce my quality of life.

Indeed - Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep

ArlEammon

2012-10-02, 02:55 AM

Indeed - Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep

Well, while I disagree with that, I will point out that in Ancient China, most Eunuchs, nearly all of them, had diabetes. :(

It is truely a barbaric and evil thing to castrate either man or woman.

Killer Angel

2012-10-02, 03:57 AM

Indeed - Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep

ohh, can I be Shaun the Sheep? I'm gonna take the hundred years. Have fun during you day. :smalltongue:

Seriously, even if it were really true, I wouldn't accept the deal: I'll live my life with no castration, tnx.

willpell

2012-10-02, 04:04 AM

As I am now, I wouldn't give up my sexuality for anything. However, it has been a mixed blessing, and there are definitely ways in which my life would have been better if I'd never developed libido in the first place. It's a "you can't go home again" thing; it'd be different if you never left. If I had it all to do over again, I don't know. I can definitely conceive of why a sane person might make the decision that the advantages of being sexual (such as getting laid) are outweighed by the negatives (such as not getting laid and being desperate to); I think if you could just turn off that part of your brain and be a monk, you could definitely hope to be content in such a lifestyle (though actual monks, as far as I know, never ceased to have a libido, they just habituated themselves into ignoring it and I don't think that's healthy).

Just a year or two ago I'd never have said anything like that and would have vehemently disagreed with someone who did, but without going into any detail, I've learned some extremely harsh lessons on the topic. There's definitely a downside to developing a taste for anything which isn't always available, let alone of mixed quality with a direct correlation between rarity and worth.

Elder Tsofu

2012-10-02, 04:50 AM

How about the paper we're currently discussing? Link (http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982212007129.pdf?intermediate=true).

It doesn't require any specialised knowledge as far as I can tell, just a basic understanding of statistics and confidence in the team's research of the source materials.
I'm more than happy to be proved wrong if you feel it requires more indepth knowledge than that possessed by the average layman.

I might not be a average layman with my master in pharmacology but it seem basic enough for most people to understand. But it felt a bit short with its one page and a column.

---

A problem could be that out of 351 eunuchs they could only identify the life-span of 81 leaving room for bias regarding exceptional cases or that eunuchs dying young didn't get properly recorded in those texts. They unfortunately just failed to mention why the others weren't included.
The other groups apparently have far more deaths of young members in the family (except the Seo family which also had a low sample-size), when did they start to castrate boys to count them as enuchs? Did some even die of the procedure?
I'd like some more general discussion of the source of the data, which might be in supplementary, but the link leads to a discussion about social conformity and signalling in cortex (or somesuch).

It might be interesting if they can get some more data (and are allowed to write a bit longer about it), but to me there are too many question marks floating around at the moment. :smallfrown:

dehro

2012-10-02, 05:15 AM

I wanted to reply to this thread with an adaptation of the rifleman's creed.. but I give up..also, it would sound rather crass and not a little creepy.

but..hell no, I'm having too much fun with them, thankyouverymuch.

Eldariel

2012-10-02, 07:13 AM

If you asked my 15-year old self and if this data were accurate, I would've definitely answered "Yes". Bloody hormones get in the way of intellectual activity, after all, and don't really produce anything of value, while extra years of life are more time to do something worthwhile such as come up with a cure for cancer or some such.

Since then I've developed an acceptance and even understood the need for irrationality too, and and I've seen enough to realize that I'll probably only want to live for about a 100 years and then I'll welcome a rest. And what my 15-yo. self didn't understand, I find sexuality isn't all that worthless after all. So at this point I'd say "Thanks, but no thanks".

The Succubus

2012-10-02, 07:26 AM

Indeed - Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep

Sheep are awesome. Quit picking on teh sheep. :smallfrown:

Brother Oni

2012-10-02, 07:27 AM

A problem could be that out of 351 eunuchs they could only identify the life-span of 81 leaving room for bias regarding exceptional cases or that eunuchs dying young didn't get properly recorded in those texts. They unfortunately just failed to mention why the others weren't included.

According to the supplemental information (http://download.cell.com/current-biology/mmcs/journals/0960-9822/PIIS0960982212007129.mmc1.pdf), it's to do how the Koreans used to record dates. Since they apparently used a 60 year cycle (so 1700 and 1761 are both 'year 1'), they could only work out the lifespan of the eunuch if the King and their ruling year was also recorded.

Using the example given, Yoon-Muk Lee was born in the seventeenth year of King Young-Jo's reign (AD 1741) and died in the sixteenth year of King Soon-Jo's reign (AD 1816). As I understand it, it would normally be recorded as 'b. year 41, d. year 56', if at all.

The other groups apparently have far more deaths of young members in the family (except the Seo family which also had a low sample-size), when did they start to castrate boys to count them as enuchs? Did some even die of the procedure?

As I understand it, the other groups were contemporary men of similar social and economic status to function as a control group, thus highlighting the effects of castration.

Judging from the age ranges, I think infant mortality and deaths from the procedure are also included in the data set.

I'd like some more general discussion of the source of the data, which might be in supplementary, but the link leads to a discussion about social conformity and signalling in cortex (or somesuch).

It might be interesting if they can get some more data (and are allowed to write a bit longer about it), but to me there are too many question marks floating around at the moment. :smallfrown:

Well the abstract with all available information I can find is here: Link (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2812%2900712-9).

The main source was the geneology record, the Yang-Se-Gye-Bo, and information from there was cross referenced with the Annals of the Chosun Dynasty (http://sillok.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp) (Korean) and the Diary of the Royal Secretariat (http://sjw.history.go.kr/main/main.jsp) (Korean).

Apparently the former is a daily account on national affair and state activities (and runs to 1893 volumes), while the latter is a daily diary of the King's public life and interaction with the bureaucracy (3245 volumes).

I agree that there's quite a few question marks, but the team have said they'd like to look at the records of eunuchs of the Chinese and the Ottoman empires to see if the same longevity also crops up.