It's a dick topic of extremely minimal consequence in the grand scheme that just makes spaces like this looks like a bunch of dick-obsessed weirdos complaining because their dicks are too small.
Like I said, you're not wrong on the topic, it's just being so focused on the topic in the first place is fucking weird.
Source? This is my point, that I think we lack evidence for that claim.
Whoa hold the fucking phone here - are you seriously telling me the guy running around town in the "I'm a Russian Asset" shirt might be a Russian asset???
God can we please leave this weird obsession with circumcision on reddit? You're not wrong, it's just such a weird thing to focus on all the goddamn time.
The "you'll feel worse and worse" part is pretty blatantly ignoring the endorphin rush that exists here. Like yes you may feel worse on the level, but it's accentuated with moments of feeling pretty damn great, which seems disingenuous to ignore.
I'm not even a smoker, and I was happy as hell when I parents quit smoking, but let's not pretend the choice is as simple as "poison or no poison" without any tangible upsides.
I'll say that I think if the situation was truly as simple and non-nuanced as you describe, I wouldn't have any reason to be confused or uncertain on the topic.
But as stated, since even those who adhere to best practices seem to be at higher risk with compound exposure, I think your claim of simple acclimation is a little lacking. I think there is truth in what you say, but far from the whole truth and it is what is missing which eludes me as well.
So I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but it's my understanding that while average ages were much lower in the past, this number is heavily skewed by infant mortalities and deaths due to preventable disease. As I understand it, the expected age of an otherwise healthy individual was pretty comparable to us today. More people died young, but those who didn't lived about as long as us. So I don't think not living long enough for skin cancer to take effect really jives with my understanding of history.
But again, I'm not an expert and the likelihood that I'm just an idiot who is wildly misunderstanding things is, frankly, high.
I mean I definitely see your point, but as I understand it even field workers are encouraged to use sunscreen and farmers and others who spend a lot of time outdoors are at greater risk of long-term damage, not lesser, despite this supposed acclimation.
Yeah I should have clarified that for multiplayer games, especially lobby-style instead of persistent-world style, all of this changes because how active and engaged the playerbase is a HUGE component.
But I'm a solo player 90% of the time, so that particular aspect, while important, doesn't really pertain to me.
Those make sense to me, but I'll be honest with you, where I struggle is with the idea of sunscreen. How did our ancestors live outside constantly without any sunscreen but if I'm outside for more than 2 hours in the summer without it I come home looking like a burnt lobster?
I'm sure the answer is that I'm ignorant, or the "natural causes" of yesteryear were really just undiagnosed skin cancer or something, but I have to admit it does seem like a real negative adaptation here from the viewpoint of my uneducated mind.
Yeah exactly. Crazy thing is a good game is just as good 3, 4 years later as it is on release day. What a novel idea, right?
As I said in a other comment, I think "they didn't live long enough" is a bit of misconception. I'll repeat my comment here rather than writing it out again:
"So I'm no expert, so take this with a grain of salt, but it's my understanding that while average ages were much lower in the past, this number is heavily skewed by infant mortalities and deaths due to preventable disease. As I understand it, the expected age of an otherwise healthy individual was pretty comparable to us today. More people died young, but those who didn't lived about as long as us. So I don't think not living long enough for skin cancer to take effect really jives with my understanding of history.
But again, I'm not an expert and the likelihood that I'm just an idiot who is wildly misunderstanding things is, frankly, high."