4 ms·

> "Immorality" is not only theoretically possible, it has been thoroughly mastered by many ;) Well done!

by charlieflowers 7y ago

izzydata 7y ago
Apparently it was the first thing humankind mastered.
- ggggtez 7y ago
  Obviously, we are discussing immortality of non-human species. However, we more or less understand that morality of larger lifeforms is encoded in our DNA (e.g. telemers). Mortality seems to be a defense against cancer. There is no particular reason that a human needs to grow old, except for the accidents of evolution.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
    Mortality is not a defence against cancer. Mortality is a tool that allows species to more speedily adapt to changing environment. Sexual reproduction is another such tool, which ensures enhanced diversity of future generations, so some of the descendants will adapt better and leave more better adapted descendants. Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it.
    - modo_mario 7y ago
      >"Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it." Not exactly and i believe there are a rare few that are much much more resistant to it and as such have become subject of research (trough TP53 in elephants or P16 and P27 in naked mole rats) At the end of the day this natural incentive depends on when the cancer can appear (generally right away at every step of the cell cycles) and how likely it is which probably depends on the turnover and amount of cells of a particular type or in the being overall which one would assume increases as the being grows and additionally how likely it is to inhibit reproduction as it grows. As it stands i'd say whilst they're not too inhibiting on this front (for example humans are most fertile at relatively young age well before most cancer occurrences become a problem. We've just extended our lifespan quite a bit) they still can be (kids can die of cancer too) and thus an evolutionary incentive against it however minor is present.
  - Kaibeezy 7y ago
    They do say “laughter is the best medicine”, and morality is obviously funnier than mortality. No mere telomere can tell me my mortality, as long as I’m defending myself by laughing at spelling errors. Did I tell you about the time, in 7th grade biology class, the kid sitting next to me was asked to read something aloud from the textbook about ”organisms”, but of course she said “orgasms”. She might have died a little right there, whilst the rest of us got her energy recycled as a power-up.

> "Immorality" is not only theoretically possible, it has been thoroughly mastered by many ;) Well done!

izzydata 7y ago

Apparently it was the first thing humankind mastered.

ggggtez 7y ago
Obviously, we are discussing immortality of non-human species. However, we more or less understand that morality of larger lifeforms is encoded in our DNA (e.g. telemers). Mortality seems to be a defense against cancer. There is no particular reason that a human needs to grow old, except for the accidents of evolution.
- Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
  Mortality is not a defence against cancer. Mortality is a tool that allows species to more speedily adapt to changing environment. Sexual reproduction is another such tool, which ensures enhanced diversity of future generations, so some of the descendants will adapt better and leave more better adapted descendants. Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it.
  - modo_mario 7y ago
    >"Btw, in this sense cancer is just another tool, that limits lifespan and ensures generations change. Of course, it didn't appear as such, but most species have no natural incentive to develop a resistance to it." Not exactly and i believe there are a rare few that are much much more resistant to it and as such have become subject of research (trough TP53 in elephants or P16 and P27 in naked mole rats) At the end of the day this natural incentive depends on when the cancer can appear (generally right away at every step of the cell cycles) and how likely it is which probably depends on the turnover and amount of cells of a particular type or in the being overall which one would assume increases as the being grows and additionally how likely it is to inhibit reproduction as it grows. As it stands i'd say whilst they're not too inhibiting on this front (for example humans are most fertile at relatively young age well before most cancer occurrences become a problem. We've just extended our lifespan quite a bit) they still can be (kids can die of cancer too) and thus an evolutionary incentive against it however minor is present.
- Kaibeezy 7y ago
  They do say “laughter is the best medicine”, and morality is obviously funnier than mortality. No mere telomere can tell me my mortality, as long as I’m defending myself by laughing at spelling errors. Did I tell you about the time, in 7th grade biology class, the kid sitting next to me was asked to read something aloud from the textbook about ”organisms”, but of course she said “orgasms”. She might have died a little right there, whilst the rest of us got her energy recycled as a power-up.