I only see a purpose of aging and dying for the population (population control), but no good reason for the individual...What are your thoughts on aging, living, and dying? What do you think of projects such as SENS (Anti-aging)? And while we're at it, let's give our thoughts on Gaia theory and superorganisms and keeping homeostasis and the like.
Life is a game. It's no fun to play a game in God Mode.
I would personally like to live for a long time.
Evolution.
>>5
Good point. I like seeing people squirm to think of reasons, though.
i'm pretty sure i'm going to live forever.
>>7
So far, so good, eh?
aging/death does have a purpose, it allows for the diversity and shift of genetic material. but its simply because of the deletion of the telomeres at the end of dna.
>>9
But the diversity and shift of genetic material owes to reproduction. How does death assist this (per an individual basis, if possible?)
I guess one big purpose of aging is to reach sexual maturity.
Animals evolve in nature because the weak die out and the strong keep surviving. In this way, animals adapt to their environment and strengthen themselves as a species.
Mankind rejected evolution, preferring to correct their own faults through outside means. Thus, man created eyeglasses, hearing aids, prosthetic limbs, wheelchairs, and medicine to cure diseases which would have purged humanity of some of its weaker members. Money allows even the genetically weakest among us to survive past the poor, which may or may not be genetically stronger.
Intelligence is something that has surpassed physical strength in the order of evolution among man. In this way, we are different from animals, whose death signify future genetic improvement. Our deaths no longer signify anything genetically.
Man was too good for evolution. Man was too good for living and dying naturally. Man has rejected nature. Man intends to make himself a God.
>>11 God has eyeglasses, hearing aids, prosthetic limbs and a wheelchair?
Evolution isn't good or bad in an absolute sense, it's all circumstantial. The species that have survived until now are adapted to their current environment but that doesn't mean they'll be able to cope with a sudden change, some of them might, some others might not.
Regarding human intelligence I'll just say homus homini lupus: While I agree that our genetic pool should be cleansed and if intelligence allows you to survive then you're fit for your environment, however, I disagree that man is that intelligent. War, pollution, demographic explosion, etc., etc. all that eventually will rebound and kill all these "gods".
The Purpose of Aging (and living, dying).........is to die one day!
That is all to it!
What if some civilisation back then knew how to modify DNA?
In the old days we were living up to a thousand years, according to the Bible records. Now there is barely anyone reaching 120 years, max. Barely the time to grow up and make babies and it's already the end of the line.
If so, then methinks those who tampered with human genes wanted short-lived, obedient slaves or soldiers. And kept the females with the 1000-year DNA for themselves, but died in some accident. Research agrees we are all descending from the same, late on the line, woman.
I think that the purpose for aging is so that you can die for population control. Then again, this question has been done to the moon and back.
I've read that funny text as well, it says that a bloke lived for 969 years.
If you speak more than 1 language you should know how hard is to translate things accurately. For such an ancient text (the bible) to be translated so many times is likely that its original meaning (assuming there was one to begin with) has eroded. If you really want to study that book you better learn Hebrew and classic Greek (at least) and study it from a WAY previous edition.
Now, the most logic explanation I have found for such extraordinary longevity is that time measurement was different. They must have accounted for age in lunar cycles so:
969 "years" / ~12 lunar cycles per actual year = ~81 actual years
Cancer cells are immortal. While normal cells have a senescence trigger. In other words, cell death is programmed. Why would a living organism wish for cell death? A living organism would not want to not live. It doesn't make sense... unless it was rigged.
A common theme in Hollywood movies about clones is that the bio-engineers set up the clones to live a shorter time than humans, for "safety" purposes (usually greed). But Evolution/Nature/Life/whatever would not be interested in "safety". It would be interested in expansion and multiplication, unfettered.
>>11 "Survival of the fittest" is fallacious reasoning, in that it 'begs the question,' presupposing that it is in fact the fittest that survived. All one could logically deduce from survival is "Survival of the survivors."
Surely there will be a host of you here who balk at that proposition, but if you wish to challenge it, please tell me how you KNOW that it is in fact the fittest that survived.
P.S. The purpose of living is to serve God, the purpose of aging and dying is to affect that service.
An alternate question:
Why would the probability for survival of a fit group be the same as an unfit group?
> "Survival of the fittest" is fallacious reasoning, in that it 'begs the question,' presupposing that it is in fact the fittest that survived. All one could logically deduce from survival is "Survival of the survivors."
There is no fallacy, because there is no argument. It is a catchphrase.
>>P.S. The purpose of living is to serve God, the purpose of aging and dying is to affect that service.
I've never served any sort of deity and I'd say I'm pretty much alive.
Apoptosis, regulated cell death, is triggered by DNA damage, i.e. a cell "wants" to die because it has mutated, it's useless (ideally it would always happen this way).
>> I've never served any sort of deity and I'd say I'm pretty much alive.
Anyway, back to no.1.
I can think of a good reason for dying for the individual, and that is when people are old, they tend to "wait for their death". I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone, but if you go to one of those Old People's Homes (buildings for elders who need to be taken cared of), they just sit around and don't really do much.
They can't really do much because their own organs are failing them to do sports or even to go out. If you see human beings are like a machine, i would say that machines that worked for (for example) 70 years is one hell of an achevement
If one day we were able to isolate and modify the gene(s) that control aging in humans, would we want to make ourselves "immortal" or ageless? It would definitely have a drastic impact on the population, but it's worth thinking about how we might be able to modify ourselves in very fundamental ways in the near future.
Already our medicine seems to be stressing death as something preventable. Natural Death, is no longer a medically valid assessment. So much of our medical research goes into prolonging the life of old people, it's quite astounding.
No problem. In first-world countries the population expansion decline. An immortal-gene population (actually, they would still be subject to death through accidents) would adjust itself.
>You can also stir your coffee with a pencil - it's still a pencil.
You can also shove it up your ass and it's still a pencil, amirite?
In a full natural environment, I guess, the "life and death" cycle is essential to:
1) evolution, since "sons" are much more evolved than "fathers", nature tends to "clean" the old ones up, to make room, to improve evolution further. ( Imagine if your primitive ancestor would still be alive by now and having un-evolved babies )
2) Space, matter. There's a limited amount of space and matter in a natural environment, if all that matter is converted into organic living being there'll be a lack of inorganic matter.
3) Balance of the natural cycle, without death bodies to "feed" the earth there would be an unbalance to our natural cycle of the matter. Btw that doesn't mean that another type of balance is not possible. But maybe this is the best one.
>>>> To be continued
>Imagine if your primitive ancestor would still be alive by now
He would wage wars with other tribes and steal their stuff... Oh, wait. He still does.
>There's a limited amount of space and matter
I thought the universe was infinite? Go boldly where no man had gone before.
>>>>>
Human Intelligence and free will are something that fucks those three points up. Those alone classify human beings.
We have the potential to control the natural environment and shape it to our needs.
As you've write, we don't need our body to evolve anymore. We have the potential to improve it with our own technology.
We ultimately have the "potential" to understand how to modify our bodies, or even to create new ones to replace ours according to our likings. That would be "eternal youth", and we'd be set out the cycle of "life and death".
I've write "potential" because we can do that but we're still far from it.
And that is simply because we're way too busy gaining money, power and fucking each other up (by and in every meaning possible).
Each society has sucked a lot so far. We have only had boosts in science thanks to very short periods of grace ( usually allowed by those who holded power), if compared to the whole history of mankind. So, if we do exists since about 10000 years ago, we've only spent an extremely small percentage of those years doing some serious efforts in science, and the 95% of those efforts were made in the last 300 years.
Since achieving a "dream" society is probably a task harder than gaining "eternal youth" but
What if there were worldwide peace and economical stability?
And if there were like 1000% more scientists, engineers, and technicians?
What if a much bigger Research budget was entirely spent on serious research? ( instead than garbage like "How many times a day a man farts" or "Why do men are attracted by younger women?").
The "war point" is a very good one and I agree with you.
>There's a limited amount of space and matter in a natural environment
it was referred to our planet's natural environment, which is of course, limited.
>I thought the universe was infinite?
well since nothing has been found yet behind the "Cosmic Microwave Background", we may assume that the universe has a border, but this is another story and another debate.
>What if a much bigger Research budget was entirely spent on serious research?
Not a guarantee of success. Example, IBM's pure research labs. They were too disconnected from reality, and didn't bring useable products.
>it was referred to our planet's natural environment, which is of course, limited.
There is still plenty of space to expand on this planet. I don't see why we should limit ourselves yet.
People die to make room for new kids.
>>34
In that case, they're not dying nearly fast enough.
Whenever I look at life, it seems that the single purpose of it to have the organism stay alive.
60-80 years of life is quite good already for such a complex set of organics to survive.
So, i would say that aging is the failure of the living being's objective to survive, and this failure was surpassed in early stages of life but multiplying.
>60-80 years of life is quite good already for such a complex set of organics to survive.
Whales live up to 200 years.
> Whales live up to 200 years.
Some trees can life over 4000 years.
>60-80 years of life is quite good already for such a complex set of organics to survive.
Trees don't exactly fall under that description.
>>39
How are they not complex?
What do you have against trees... are you some kind of mammalian supremacist?
I think a more practical question is on the purpose of muscle atrophy. Why do muscles become completely useless when we stop using them, further impairing the ability to survive?
Downsizing makes sense, to conserve energy. But to the point of uselessness...
Answers?
Most likely because it has not been a problem in practice. If it is not actively killing or impairing you, evolution will not affect it.
the main reason (this is the current theory) that we age is that whenever a cell divides the ends of the chromosomes (telomerase) fray/shrink/ect and each subsequent division will keep damaging the telomerase, as such, once the telomerase is damaged to the point of 0 function the cell can no longer divide therefore it can no longer grow/repair (and the suspected reason for loss of tissue strength as we age is that the cells become less and less durable/functional with increasing damage to the telomerase). of course there are many many other factors that contribute to ageing, such as diet (free radicals speed up the aging process as they cause improper bodily/chemical reactions), fitness (healthy cells = survive longer duh), ect i belive the limit for a cell dividing is 50 times...its called the hayflick limit or something
so in theory you could extend your life somewhat if you could repair/replenish the telomerase...but we could never reach immortality.
and plants can live for ages...infact you can get clippings off a plant and regrow them basically cloning the plant...main reasons that plants (tree's im talking about...flowers dont live very long as they are fragile) die is from disease, fire, parasites or the xylem of the plant (non living tissue) rots away, i mean some seeds can even be preserved for centuries with no abnormality in growth...to bad being a plant would just plain suck ;P
Your entire body's cells regenerates every 11 months, so at any given time you are max, 11 months old.
1 week of healthy living does wonders for cells and energy supplies.