3 ms·
that's what the regeneration process is for. and you only get 12 of them so don't waste them by falling off the top of a radio tower or be poisoned by gas. in
by jknight 18y ago
that's what the regeneration process is for. and you only get 12 of them so don't waste them by falling off the top of a radio tower or be poisoned by gas.
in all seriousness, I very much enjoyed your comment. In my opinion, I think it would be great if we could somehow make the process of aging less uncomfortable for our last half of our life while keeping our natural lifespan more or less the same 70 +/-. But if we can find cures for alzheimers, skin cancer, etc that would be great for our quality of life. But where do you draw a line between anti-aging and cures for diseases such as these?
- Allocator2008 18y agoInteresting question. I am not a biologist, but I believe I read that cells have a sort of "internal clock", modulated by certain enzymes. Normally cells reproduce in a certain way, but these enzymes deplete over time, such that at a certain point the cellular structures don't reproduce in the same manner as before. Hence, "aging". So, sure I am all for finding treatments for Alzheimer's and so on, but aging itself, as outlined above, is just really an evolutionary necessity. Stephen King treats this sensitive topic well in his novel, 'Pet Sematary', dealing with both the human resistance to, and the biological necessity of, death, including the aging process leading into that. Personally I find great comfort in the idea that even if however many millions of years from now, all or most mammals, including humans, will be extinct, some of our genes won't be, just as for example birds have some of the genes the dinosaurs had. The individual may be here for only a short time, but the genes she carries are far more transcendent.