There is no dietary requirement for exogenous glucose in our food.

This is true, we can make all the glucose we need without eating any sugar at all.

glucose is still quite bad

True.

Fructose is twice as sweet as Glucose, and while we do use Glucose for energy the same is not true for fructose, and fructose is way way more harmful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweetness

the court case concerned a property dispute.

Insane to destroy the rest of your life because of a property dispute!

OK, that only confirms to me that he was in fact insane. There is no way we are supposed to eat only fruit, it simply doesn’t provide any real energy, but consumes as much to digest as it yields, meaning there is no way to survive on fruit alone.

So where’s does he claim to only eat fruit?
Are you confusing it with him recommending to use Apple? 😋 (/s)

Also the man was insane. If you based on false beliefs make decisions against professional advice, that are detrimental to your well being, and even put your life in danger, that is AFAIK a very key aspect of being insane.

You made 2 false claims, and now you say you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
Yes, I kind of figured that out already.

Fructose is the element in sugar (Sucrose) that actually taste sweet, it is also the part that is unhealthy. it acts somewhat like alcohol.
Giving similar problems and can also cause dependency.

If you want to know the basics about sugar I don’t think there is much better info than this out there, absolutely worth a watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Your question seems mostly nonsensical, we are not “house trained”, and what do you mean by “rather than controlled”?
Is your question based on biblical or another form of faith?

But in short regarding our social behavior, the principle of it is not very different from social behaviors of other group animals like dogs or chimpanzees. We “behave” because we are social animals and it’s in our DNA to work for the benefit of the the group.
Obviously misbehavior is generally rooted in conflict of interests, which can naturally occur in all groups. They are absolutely not generally a result of mania. Psychological illness is not a very significant driver for what you seem to consider “primitive” or criminal behavior.

That still doesn’t mean 30 was the maximum possible age for humans 30,000 years ago.

Yes actually it does, above 30 would be an outlier.
Of course genetically they had about the same potential as modern people, but life was simply too harsh for people to survive above 30. The struggle to survive meant they were simply worn out at that point.
We see this even today in nomadic tribes in the rain forest of South America.

Average lifespan used to be shorter because of the amount of infant mortality.

That is completely wrong.
Lifespan is NOT the same as life expectancy:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan

Lifespan is the maximum length of time that a person can live

https://www.discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy-of-ancient-humans-44847

Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.

So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve. Life expectancy would probably have been more around 15.

Read my other comment, the study is probably pretty close to the truth.
https://lemmy.world/comment/19682894

Tribal nomads of 100000 years ago did not live anywhere near to their 60’s.
AFAIK they rarely lived beyond 30.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy-of-ancient-humans-44847

Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.

Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan

Lifespan is the maximum length of time that a person can live

So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve.
Life expectancy would probably have been around 15.

Nobody dies “naturally” of old age at 38.
But genetically we come from nomadic tribes, and the nomads of a 100000 years ago, had a far shorter average lifespan than after we settled and began farming. Also people of nomadic tribes in the rain forests of South America today, often don’t live longer than that on average AFAIK.

When we look at animals, it is also not uncommon that a tamed animal pet can live twice as long or more than they usually do in the wild. For humans if modern environment has similar impact compared to the harsh life as a nomadic people, the double of 38 is 76 years, and that’s pretty close to life expectancy today.

So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the claim outright, but the article is a bit thin on details on the science.

But it’s not just medicine (as speculated by OP), it’s also hygiene, food safety and work safety, so we avoid many external factors often until our body is simply too week to continue. We basically all reach an age where we are definitely ageing, and are very far from peak condition. Strength, speed and agility wise, very few sportspeople can compete over 40 years of age, despite the advantage of experience and more years of training.

Yes and no, it’s based on observed interference by Newton, Which was noted looked like how rings in water can interfere. So observation preceded theory, which was confirmed by reproducible experimental setup.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

In 1801, Thomas Young presented a famous paper to the Royal Society entitled “On the Theory of Light and Colours”[22] which explained interference phenomena like Newton’s rings in terms of wave interference.[23]: 101  The first published account of what Young called his ‘general law’ of interference

With relativity the difference is the huge amount of thought experiments that Einstein was able to connect to a coherent theory. That explains connection between many phenomena, and explains a very larger part of how reality works, And the Theory actually explains things way outside the original thought experiments.
Like the delay in the observation of mercury appearing behind the sun. Gravitational waves and other exotic phenomena. And can be used to model things that were unknown at the time.

It’s ridiculous to claim the wave function is anywhere near general relativity in scope and significance.
In that regard the wave function is more like when Galileo figured that the sun was the center of the solar system.

It was not a thought experiment, as much as a mathematical result of observations.

Maybe not harder than those, but they are amazing, because the conclusions from them actually work.
There are other thought experiments that are unsolvable paradoxes, but these are cool exactly because they are solvable and the results reflect reality.
So I’d say Einsteins are among the coolest.
Also double slit experiment is not so much a thought experiment as it’s an experimental phenomenon that is hard to explain.
Also Einsteins thought experiments are actual science, based on reality with actual results, not just imaginary philosophic ramblings like Plato and Rawls.

There are lots of philosophical ramblings about souls id and other nonsensical philosophical terms that have no evidence of actually existing.
It’s pretty easy to ask a stupid question like: I wonder what a round cube would look like…
With nobody able to explain it, because it’s nonsense.

The round cube exist in my mind, which means it has virtual existence, and virtual existence is a form of existence too. Meaning round cubes exist.
That’s the kind of nonsense some people think is clever or deep, and think is evidence for things that are in fact nothing more than nonsense. According to the evidence, it’s also how Jesus was invented.

Australia?

IDK but be careful, if a thought experiment explodes, it can blow your mind.

No you.

for discussing their feelings?

OP is not discussing real feelings, but the equivalent of a spoiled child unhappy there are no more Christmas presents, after having had dozens. It’s not even that there aren’t anymore, it’s like if there aren’t anymore big ones.
You know? Sometimes people need to be told the truth, otherwise they never learn.
OP is behaving like a small child, seeking empathy and emotional support for a situation that is as banal as they come.
There are situations where people need to be told to grow up, and this is such a situation IMO.

Also there were lots of downvotes to OP, but nobody explained why they did it, at least I did. You are then free to disagree. But you original response to me is a strawman argument. And way more impolite than I was.
I only criticized the actual post, you were decidedly insulting my person. So you can behave very much like a dick yourself.
Note how I didn’t call you a dick, but only stated you can BEHAVE like one.
My guess from your posts is that you are probably around 11-13 and are just as childish as OP, which is why you find it perfectly OK.

And where exactly do I complain about anyone enjoying something?
It’s fine to enjoy an ice cram, it’s childish to whine about it when it’s finished.

I’m not religious, but Jesus Christ that’s pathetic. How will you ever recover?
How about just being happy you had the opportunity to read it?