Quote:
Quote by: Marilyn Monroe  I'd agree that extra oxygen probably would help, but not sure it would be able to totally flush out all the toxins. I've always felt extra oxygen would be important for smokers. Still would make sense to quit smoking if you could. There's no real good reason for smoking outside of it being a bad habit.
Doubt they lived much past 30 if they made it that far. Infant mortality had to be real high.
Living has always been stressful just in different ways. Having enough to eat has to be super stressful.
If smoking had some real redeeming qualities I could see wanting to drop the issue, but it's really a crappy habit that serves no useful purpose. It stinks, and it's dirty. That's about it. |
Again, the low trace amounts in tobacco smoke (which I have already domonstrate here) is not enough to worrry about, the reduction in the oxygen levels in our air and in our blood system directly effects our health and our life span. If we add the lack of oxygen due in large part to the clearing of rain forests and lumbering activities, and the paveing over of nature with parking lots and other man-made covers, along with the tons of oil based gasoline polution which is massive nowadays, we got troubles. Blaming smokers of tobacco products for all this is down right stupid. (not suggesting that debaters are stupid, just the "ideas" which motivate the anti-smoking agenda).
The idea smoking is dirty or if it stinks is a matter of opinion but none the less the smell and the ashes do not represent a health problem, that would fall under the topic of discrimination. You have a right to gripe about the smell if you wish, but that is not a reason to promote false claims about it being unhealthy. Some people love the smell of pipe smoke because it reminds them of their dear old grandfather, it all depends on your mental conditioning towards different smells. A man might like the smell of oil because they love working on cars, while women might prefer the smell of flowers or food cooking on the stove. A matter of personal conditioning.
A past experience could influence you, if your house caught on fire you might link that after smell to something you found distrubing and then transfer that to the smell of cigarettes and ash. Etc. You might link he smell of smoke with the smell of death due to some tramatic experience where some person or animal was killed in a fire. So on and so forth - but that is not proof that smoking is deadly as it amounts only a form of phychological training.
Other factors no doubt came into play which could play a role in how long a person lived in prehistoric times, but air quality would not be one of those factors, they could have lived much longer then people nowadays if those other factors could have been overcome. Some very old writings suggested that biblical people lived to be as much as 300 years old, as is the case in other primitive mythologies, fossil research would support that such a theology has some elemient of truth in it.
Stress can be good for you if you respond correctly to it. If you stress your body by lifting weights you get a stronger body, I am not blaming stress at all, I am saying that the problem is "how we react to stress" will make the difference between becoming stronger or weaker, between mental evolution or depressed evolution, between good health or poor health.
In modern times we are confronted with stress that is not even natural in the animal world, all the little things people say and do to upset you or your ego, that sort of stress must be delt with properly via clamness and fore-knowledge, not with resentment, anger, or fear. Because such stress is not natural and cannot be delt with via a natural reaction such as you might use to defend your self form a animal preditor. Not knowing how to deal with everyday stress such as that is what is behind most of our internal health problems.
You cannot confuse natural stress and a natural reaction to the un-natural stress of modern times and still comprehend my explanations.
Not having enough to eat would simply encourage a prehistoric being to pursue more sources of food or to go hunting, to adopt new ways to get food. In our modern times our options are mostly limited to getting a job or to get enough money to buy food at a store, or to own property for farming or whatnot, which can subject us to a need to paying property taxes, selling some of our food to pay off a mortgage or the loan to buy seeds, etc. Trying to compare primitive times to our modern culture is not a good way to compare things. A whole different set of stress factors have been put into place. Our failure to adopt to those new stress factors is directly linked to the rise in certian diseases within our cultures. In primitive times a tribe could just migrate form an area with low food supplies to another area where food is more abundant, needless to say in modern times such migration and "immigration" is controlled by governments and fenses, and other policies that seperate poverty form wealth. This is a whole new ballgame with new rules, and new methods of adaptation are so demanded because the goal posts were moved.
More later...