Ray Peat claims the Hayflick limit is nonsense, but... It's Ray Peat, so apply salt. http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/stemcells.shtml
How scientific is the idea that there is nothing but science to learn? Or perhaps one must reinvent the wheel to drive a car.
To me, the answer to any of such questions, is "name is name". A reference to a thing is that thing itself, yet simultaneously not that thing. It is also always empty, and unbound. Or we can keep arguing in absolutes, and be sure the answer is always past the horizon.
Yeah, my argument, when taken that far, is unworkable. When considering how far to maximize the reward function, the metaphor of a treadmill is apt. There are forces constantly pulling backwards, and if I don't keep ahead of them, I might as well going backwards on my own. We take the conflict and complexity, and give it space. So I'd say "to remain conflicted is a kind of hypocrisy." or maybe to roll the dice at complexity and conflict isn't much better than pure hypocrisy. I'm having a bit of trouble phrasing this, I think because life isn't discrete like I may have painted it, but what is really preventing me from mastering everything? Should I name it? Does it have a will of its own? Maybe it's just entropy, and whatever convictions some other, more honest version of me had, just need to be reinforced at every possible moment.
The idea of good and evil (truth/lies) come to mind, not because there's any clear meaning to them, but because drawing a clear line, and labeling things accordingly, is one of the more powerful 'dark arts' we have. The idea of opposites is one of the first to go when thinking about rationality. But it might also be a fairly rational way of handling complexity.
I read that Copper deficiency can impact Iron absorption (causing deficiency). Zinc supplementation can cause Copper Deficiency.