4 ms·

isn't it necessary for evolution? Also to keep a balanced variety of species in a self sustaining system such as earth. I suppose without aging, population cont

isn't it necessary for evolution? Also to keep a balanced variety of species in a self sustaining system such as earth. I suppose without aging, population control would fall squarely on parasites (such as viruses), plagues, natural disasters, and wars over domination of limited resources. Actually i suppose we could be wired differently where organisms don't feel a need to have as much offspring.. But that reinforces the evolution problem.

gnaritas 14y ago
What evolution problem? Evolution happens regardless, but why should we be bound to the limitations of nature when we have the potential ability to rise above them?
- bitwize 14y ago
  Yeah, look how far transcending the limits of nature got us. The planet is polluted and rapidly warming up; and biodiversity, food and water supplies, and other natural resources are dwindling, all because of us trying to get out of the niche nature had provided us.
  - JulianMorrison 14y ago
    You want to see the same thing in nature, put some yeast in a bottle full of sugar water. They won't think much about their waste products or the limits of resources either. Nature is full of boom/crunch scenarios. You are seeing a biased view because you are seeing the ecosystems that lasted - ones that oscillate perhaps, but average to balanced. Humans and our works are as natural as ants and anthills. All creatures strive to expand - humans, uniquely, have the ability to apply choice to the matter. If anything it's our ecological thinking that is "transcending the limits of nature".
- SonicSoul 14y ago
  the way i see it as a evolution problem is two fold. Evolution happens via generations of species. if a single generation is around indefinitely, it is not evolving. Secondly, the units of species with inferior genes (in evolutionary sense) are also around indefinitely with ability to continue to have offspring slowing down the process of that genome being filtered out of existence
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    You're making the mistake of assuming evolution is progress; that's not how it works. Evolution is adaption to the current environment, that could be progress or devolving, whatever works better. Older genes are not inferior. Secondly, evolution works across great timescales, doubling or tripling lifetimes won't stop evolution. There is no evolution problem. Thirdly, if people could live indefinitely, there would still not be an evolution problem, there'd be a population and resource problem, which would change the environment thus accelerating evolution by selecting those who could survive on fewer resources or those capable of obtaining resources.
tzs 14y ago
Other than among humans and animals under the care of humans, don't almost all animals die from causes other than old age? That doesn't show that aging isn't necessary, but it indicates that aging doesn't have to continue until it becomes a cause of death.
JulianMorrison 14y ago
Evolution has no intent. It's just shit that happens. And we humans are at a technological point where we can modify our culture, our technology, or our own biological nature much faster than evolution, making it a non-issue.
rsanchez1 14y ago
The only thing really necessary for evolution is production of offspring and accumulation of mutations. If you think about it, organisms that divide themselves to reproduce themselves, such as bacteria, some algae, and even cancerous cells, are essentially immortal, making copies of themselves and living with the identity of the original organism until the copy acquires mutations. Lifespan is merely something that wasn't selected for in the evolution of multicellular organisms, while the production of strong offspring was selected. Lifespan is something we can manipulate, and indeed we have, especially in the past few hundreds of years. When we figure out how to avoid irreversible cellular damage indefinitely, then we will have beaten death.
orangecat 14y ago
isn't it necessary for evolution? Yes, in the same way that it's necessary for people with bad eyesight to be eaten by bears.
reasonattlm 14y ago
It isn't "necessary for evolution" but rather an inevitable consequence of evolution. Quite different. Aging species outcompete ageless species in near every niche, with a few interesting exceptions. That says nothing about aging other than how effective a strategy it is in evolutionary competition - if living every moment of life in agony was an effective strategy, we'd all be doing that. See: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/we-age-because-the-world-changes.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/we-age-because-th... Evolution in the natural sense, of course, has little to do with our future now that we're getting our hands on the controls of biology, and then technologies that can replace biology. Though in the general sense it will play an important role in every culture build by humans.

gnaritas 14y ago

What evolution problem? Evolution happens regardless, but why should we be bound to the limitations of nature when we have the potential ability to rise above them?

bitwize 14y ago
Yeah, look how far transcending the limits of nature got us. The planet is polluted and rapidly warming up; and biodiversity, food and water supplies, and other natural resources are dwindling, all because of us trying to get out of the niche nature had provided us.
- JulianMorrison 14y ago
  You want to see the same thing in nature, put some yeast in a bottle full of sugar water. They won't think much about their waste products or the limits of resources either. Nature is full of boom/crunch scenarios. You are seeing a biased view because you are seeing the ecosystems that lasted - ones that oscillate perhaps, but average to balanced. Humans and our works are as natural as ants and anthills. All creatures strive to expand - humans, uniquely, have the ability to apply choice to the matter. If anything it's our ecological thinking that is "transcending the limits of nature".
SonicSoul 14y ago
the way i see it as a evolution problem is two fold. Evolution happens via generations of species. if a single generation is around indefinitely, it is not evolving. Secondly, the units of species with inferior genes (in evolutionary sense) are also around indefinitely with ability to continue to have offspring slowing down the process of that genome being filtered out of existence
- gnaritas 14y ago
  You're making the mistake of assuming evolution is progress; that's not how it works. Evolution is adaption to the current environment, that could be progress or devolving, whatever works better. Older genes are not inferior. Secondly, evolution works across great timescales, doubling or tripling lifetimes won't stop evolution. There is no evolution problem. Thirdly, if people could live indefinitely, there would still not be an evolution problem, there'd be a population and resource problem, which would change the environment thus accelerating evolution by selecting those who could survive on fewer resources or those capable of obtaining resources.

tzs 14y ago

Other than among humans and animals under the care of humans, don't almost all animals die from causes other than old age? That doesn't show that aging isn't necessary, but it indicates that aging doesn't have to continue until it becomes a cause of death.

JulianMorrison 14y ago

Evolution has no intent. It's just shit that happens. And we humans are at a technological point where we can modify our culture, our technology, or our own biological nature much faster than evolution, making it a non-issue.

rsanchez1 14y ago

The only thing really necessary for evolution is production of offspring and accumulation of mutations. If you think about it, organisms that divide themselves to reproduce themselves, such as bacteria, some algae, and even cancerous cells, are essentially immortal, making copies of themselves and living with the identity of the original organism until the copy acquires mutations. Lifespan is merely something that wasn't selected for in the evolution of multicellular organisms, while the production of strong offspring was selected. Lifespan is something we can manipulate, and indeed we have, especially in the past few hundreds of years. When we figure out how to avoid irreversible cellular damage indefinitely, then we will have beaten death.

orangecat 14y ago

isn't it necessary for evolution? Yes, in the same way that it's necessary for people with bad eyesight to be eaten by bears.

reasonattlm 14y ago

It isn't "necessary for evolution" but rather an inevitable consequence of evolution. Quite different. Aging species outcompete ageless species in near every niche, with a few interesting exceptions. That says nothing about aging other than how effective a strategy it is in evolutionary competition - if living every moment of life in agony was an effective strategy, we'd all be doing that. See: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/we-age-because-the-world-changes.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/03/we-age-because-th... Evolution in the natural sense, of course, has little to do with our future now that we're getting our hands on the controls of biology, and then technologies that can replace biology. Though in the general sense it will play an important role in every culture build by humans.