7 ms·

Maybe the headline is somewhat flawed, but objects with negligible senescence are discussed in the article. According to the article the only difference between

Maybe the headline is somewhat flawed, but objects with negligible senescence are discussed in the article. According to the article the only difference between organisms with and without negligible senescence is whether there is a possibility for damage to accumulate.

Karlozkiller 9y ago
But wouldn't aging be exactly that damage accumulation? Are we then not saying 'not aging is impossible, here are some examples of things not aging' ?
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Aging is a “planned” process, damage is just damage. Shortening telomeres with reproduction, cell senescence, loss of reproductive viability are not damage, they’re age related. UV light knocking a base pair out of a whack is damage. If you live long enough, you will accumulate damage even in the absence of aging. The hope for humans is thst we develop means to both halt aging, and repair accumulated damage.
rowyourboat 9y ago
Where exactly does he discuss that? His entire point seems to be that aging is inevitable: > The constant risk is environmental (accidents, infectious disease), but much of the exponentially increasing risk is due to internal wear. ... but as examples of negligible senescence show, that is simply not the case. This "exponentially increasing risk" is just not a given.
- saalweachter 9y ago
  The author gets into it in the comments (which are now two years old at this point?).