As much as I may rail against various leftist ideologies, I do not believe that these notions would have gained the traction that they have had it not been for narcissism. Moreover, it’s a feedback loop, in my view, in that more leftism results in more narcissism with one form thereof being the obsession with longevity.
While certainly a desire to live a long and healthy life is laudable, where it veers into obsession it’s counterproductive. Specifically, regardless of how long a person lives, if that life is not “worthwhile” in terms of character-building, legacy, morality, honor, and the spreading of good will and good example, then it’s an empty-calorie sort of long life.
In my view, based on my own research and observation, we all have the capacity for narcissism, particularly as a self-preservation strategy when higher-level reasoning fails. The failure of higher-level reasoning could be a birth-defect, nutritional deficit, chemical compromise, biological agent compromise, sleep compromise, or hypnosis compromise. Crowding and lack of hope in the future can compound these effects. However, whereas a depressed person still clearly has a sense of higher-level reasoning (to not be depressed in the face of societal and economic decay is its own narcissism) a narcissist merely places both blame and responsibility outside of his or herself. This is not to say that one can’t develop into the other particularly when a depressive self-medicates, deprives oneself of nutrition and sleep, and is subject to the vagaries of environment.
It is my view that female metabolism which is foremost designed to nurture a fetus even at the expense of the brain of the host is particularly susceptible to nutrition-based narcissism. Such a condition is compounded by skin-deep notions of female value that result in caloric and nutritional deprivation, to include over-eating of empty junk. Of course, the notion of what is “junk” and what is “nutritious” is heavily politicized with various actors overdeveloping the notion that “fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans are nutritious.” Not so. About the only benefit of such things (and it is a benefit) have to do with their ability to feed beneficial microbes and yeasts and otherwise harbor flora which produce actual nutrition in the host. However, in the case of imbalanced flora or candiasis, then these foods tend to compound the imbalance. Whereas nutrition which both repairs the body and properly fuels the heart consists of protein, fats, and cholesterol, and the vitamins and minerals inherent therein. We need both nutrition for ourselves and nutrition for our flora. However in the case of an imbalance or improperly developed digestive system, a relief from all carbohydrate forms for a specified period of time, can alleviate those problems. At some point however, those foodstuffs need to return to some degree as a means of nourishing intestinal mucus for the benefit of those flora.
Meanwhile, societal pressures which punish and shame masculinity encourage more narcissism within the male population. It is a shame that the obvious backlash of decades of poor mainstream nutritional advice is often food-fadism along with other narcissistic pursuits. Fasting however for defined periods can indeed have some benefit.
As for self-medication, when our mainstream medical professionals have obviously failed so many of us, then some form of self-medication makes a lot of sense, and as a curative or at least a palliative rather than a narcotic. Knowing just exactly how much of a substance to do and when is also highly variable as well as politicized. Being one’s own biofeedback mechanism also has its drawbacks. It would seem that tight communities where dietary and other lifestyle habits are generational and where similar persons can observe changes in each other, would have a higher likelihood of encouraging a positive outcome. Universal nutrition, for all latitudes, longitudes, climates, genomes, life phases, etc., is not achievable. Anyone who says otherwise probably harbors delusions of grandeur.