3 ms·

The "reason" for aging seems almost self-evident to me. The goal is to pass on [mutated] genetic information. Post-reproduction, you're simply a drag on local r

The "reason" for aging seems almost self-evident to me. The goal is to pass on [mutated] genetic information. Post-reproduction, you're simply a drag on local resources. Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food.

MikeCapone 16y ago
Anything that happens after reproduction is in an evolutionary blind spot. Aging is the result of evolutionary neglect, not design.
- s3graham 16y ago
  I disagree. If my parent stays around and eats all my food, I'm carrying bad genes that cause me to die pre-reproduction.
  - fizx 16y ago
    True. The thing I wonder about is whether the development of sentience and culture is swinging evolution's pendulum away from the resource needs of the young, and toward valuing the experience and knowledge of the elders.
  - MikeCapone 16y ago
    That would be the case, and what I said up-thread was badly formulated. But it still remains that in the way things happened, aging is evolutionary neglect. We've evolved repair mechanisms that help us pass our genes, and also parents who take care of their children (since it takes quite a while for a human child to become self-sufficient), but through most of history, humans died pretty young and so we never had time to evolve repair mechanisms for the kind of damage that happens when you are 50-60, etc.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      I'm sorry, cite your evidence please. Humans have never 'died young', it's complete bullshit, our life expectancy has changed not our longevity. Genghis Khan died at 65 in 1227. Julius Caesar was murdered at 56 years old in perfect health in 44BC. Augustus died at 77 in 14AD. Ramesses The Great is believed to have died between 90-93 years old, in 1213BC. I'm sorry, that's 3000+ years where we know our longevity hasn't changed, especially considering all of these men entered warfare. People living to 100 with all their mental and physical strength is rare, however people living to their 60's is not and has never been. Our genes evolved to fight childhood diseases and injuries, so that those who make it through have the potential to live well into their 60's without a problem. Incidentally, those who get sick less frequently in childhood tend to have a longer lifespan as is. However the whole notion that humans only lived till 30 is absurd, because it's simply not true for any of recorded history. Yes it was the average, however that was under a very different culture. Ramesses II successor was his 13th son, who lived to his early 80's. Many of his other children either died very early or died through injury or mid-life disease. His first born for instance died from a blow to the head in his 40's. Please, don't confuse life expectancy and longevity, the two are vastly different. The former has changed drastically, the latter hasn't. Regardless of whether we avoid disease today or 3000 years ago, we'll likely hit 90 years before dying of old age 'naturally' (IE from a lack of longevity).
- FlorinAndrei 16y ago
  "evolutionary neglect" I agree. That's the only mechanism that seems to have the power to explain aging, other than magic or the Invisible Hand of the Creator (but the latter two have a huge assortment of other issues).
- sliverstorm 16y ago
  Maybe not blind spot... maybe just peripheral vision? A non- or post-reproducing individual can still improve the fitness of their genome by supporting closely related individuals, or even simply their species by supporting any other member.
FlorinAndrei 16y ago
"Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food." Starvation is not the only way living creatures can die. Just up the aggression a little, for example, and the death rate returns to a self-sustainable level.

MikeCapone 16y ago

Anything that happens after reproduction is in an evolutionary blind spot. Aging is the result of evolutionary neglect, not design.

s3graham 16y ago
I disagree. If my parent stays around and eats all my food, I'm carrying bad genes that cause me to die pre-reproduction.
- fizx 16y ago
  True. The thing I wonder about is whether the development of sentience and culture is swinging evolution's pendulum away from the resource needs of the young, and toward valuing the experience and knowledge of the elders.
- MikeCapone 16y ago
  That would be the case, and what I said up-thread was badly formulated. But it still remains that in the way things happened, aging is evolutionary neglect. We've evolved repair mechanisms that help us pass our genes, and also parents who take care of their children (since it takes quite a while for a human child to become self-sufficient), but through most of history, humans died pretty young and so we never had time to evolve repair mechanisms for the kind of damage that happens when you are 50-60, etc.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    I'm sorry, cite your evidence please. Humans have never 'died young', it's complete bullshit, our life expectancy has changed not our longevity. Genghis Khan died at 65 in 1227. Julius Caesar was murdered at 56 years old in perfect health in 44BC. Augustus died at 77 in 14AD. Ramesses The Great is believed to have died between 90-93 years old, in 1213BC. I'm sorry, that's 3000+ years where we know our longevity hasn't changed, especially considering all of these men entered warfare. People living to 100 with all their mental and physical strength is rare, however people living to their 60's is not and has never been. Our genes evolved to fight childhood diseases and injuries, so that those who make it through have the potential to live well into their 60's without a problem. Incidentally, those who get sick less frequently in childhood tend to have a longer lifespan as is. However the whole notion that humans only lived till 30 is absurd, because it's simply not true for any of recorded history. Yes it was the average, however that was under a very different culture. Ramesses II successor was his 13th son, who lived to his early 80's. Many of his other children either died very early or died through injury or mid-life disease. His first born for instance died from a blow to the head in his 40's. Please, don't confuse life expectancy and longevity, the two are vastly different. The former has changed drastically, the latter hasn't. Regardless of whether we avoid disease today or 3000 years ago, we'll likely hit 90 years before dying of old age 'naturally' (IE from a lack of longevity).
FlorinAndrei 16y ago
"evolutionary neglect" I agree. That's the only mechanism that seems to have the power to explain aging, other than magic or the Invisible Hand of the Creator (but the latter two have a huge assortment of other issues).
sliverstorm 16y ago
Maybe not blind spot... maybe just peripheral vision? A non- or post-reproducing individual can still improve the fitness of their genome by supporting closely related individuals, or even simply their species by supporting any other member.

FlorinAndrei 16y ago

"Hypothetical populations that didn't age and die would have killed themselves off due to lack of food." Starvation is not the only way living creatures can die. Just up the aggression a little, for example, and the death rate returns to a self-sustainable level.