Why do we die?

[AOA]

Personally, I don't think so - seems totally farfetched, and ridiculous.

... I like the idea of accelerated healing, though (like Wolverine, X-Men). You can survive injuries because your body would regenerate the cells quickly and get you up and running again, quickly. It could be possible because species exist out there that have these attributes - such as lizards that grow their delimbered limbs back. Who knows...

Immortal beings lend nothing to the vigor of the species. Species level adaptation takes place with each generation. If immortal generations persist they have the potential to interfere with the success of later generations through interbreeding and competition. That being said, lifespan seems linked to size and metabolic rate. The higher the metabolism, the lower the lifespan. Things that live very slowly, age more slowly. And, there is research that radically lowering your food intake, which slows metabolism, increases lifespan.

We are all flowers. We are just meat flowers. We bud, bloom, and wither.

Pretty good, and don't forget - stress.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Why is it ridiculous? Every cell in our body is made out of basic building blocks. It's not unthinkable one could measure the exact make up of these building blocks and at a later time, recreate the older cells back to their younger previously recorded version. Ofcourse in terms of brain/memory and such, a lot more complications arise. And this isn't exactly the kind of technology that can be birthed overnight, due to all these complications, ofcourse. And that's also why I doubt it will happen any time soon.

But it's not unthinkable or ridiculous.

 

[professor goodstain]

Why is it ridiculous? Every cell in our body is made out of basic building blocks. It's not unthinkable one could measure the exact make up of these building blocks and at a later time, recreate the older cells back to their younger previously recorded version. Ofcourse in terms of brain/memory and such, a lot more complications arise. And this isn't exactly the kind of technology that can be birthed overnight, due to all these complications, ofcourse. And that's also why I doubt it will happen any time soon.

But it's not unthinkable or ridiculous.

Are you refering to things that manipulate cell reproduction like (free radicals) that dictates longevity?

 

[AOA]

Why is it ridiculous?

It's complicated - way too complicated.

 

[Fluffywolf]

Well, sorta. I'm no biologist. But I do understand cells and their make up are influencable, and it's not unthinkable a cell can be manipulated or strengthened.

And with the proper knowledge, longevity is definatly theoretically possible to accomplish.

Even if such knowledge is still centuries away from us, believing it is ridiculous seems ridiculous to me.

And ofcourse it's complicated. If it wasn't, we'd have that technology already! Just saying it's not impossible to someday aquire that knowledge.

 

[freedom geek]

Because evolution does not create optimal solutions, only good enough ones. Still be should really put some effort to overcoming it with medical science.

 

[Grayscale]

If people don't die, gene pools change much more slowly, which means if environments shift, the species would be less adaptive.

Immortal beings lend nothing to the vigor of the species. Species level adaptation takes place with each generation

not necessarily, considering that the realizations that are made as we grow older are often exponentially applicable and effective. if we were not such a selfish species, a larger age diversity would strengthen us like all biological diversity, not make us weaker.

 

[iamathousandapples]

because if we didn't we would have no need to reproduce, and if we were eaten or horribly mutilated in a lion fight, our species would be screwed.

 

[Thalassa]

so that we appreciate life

 

[AOA]

our species would be screwed.

... For God's Sake, can the members of the same 'species' STOP calling ourselves 'species'? Sounds retarded.

We're human, and very much 'different' to the animals - and there are your so-called 'species'.

 

[Wade Wilson]

Because the dinosaurs touched themselves at night.

 

[FC3S]

We die because we're born, simple enough? We aren't even alive.

 

[iamathousandapples]

... For God's Sake, can the members of the same 'species' STOP calling ourselves 'species'? Sounds retarded.

We're human, and very much 'different' to the animals - and there are your so-called 'species'.

"We wear pants, therefore we're better"

 

[JocktheMotie]

Interesting article I found today, curious to see what people think, as it references a biological mechanism for "death" and why the hell it should be there.

Is Aging an Accident of Evolution? -A Galaxy Classic

Their discovery contradicts the prevailing theory that aging is a buildup of tissue damage similar to rust. The Stanford findings suggest specific genetic instructions drive the process. If they are right, science might one day find ways of switching the signals off and halting or even reversing aging.

...

Comparing young worms to old worms, Kim’s team discovered age-related shifts in levels of three transcription factors, the molecular switches that turn genes on and off. These shifts trigger genetic pathways that transform young worms into social security candidates.

...

The question of what causes aging has spawned competing schools, with one side claiming that inborn genetic programs make organisms grow old. This theory has had trouble gaining traction because it implies that aging evolved, that natural selection pushed older organisms down a path of deterioration. However, natural selection works by favoring genes that help organisms produce lots of offspring. After reproduction ends, genes are beyond natural selection’s reach, so scientists argued that aging couldn’t be genetically programmed.

The alternate, competing theory holds that aging is an inevitable consequence of accumulated wear and tear: toxins, free-radical molecules, DNA-damaging radiation, disease and stress ravage the body to the point it can’t rebound. So far, this theory has dominated aging research.


...


But the Stanford team’s findings told a different story. “Our data just didn’t fit the current model of damage accumulation, and so we had to consider the alternative model of developmental drift,” Kim said.

 

[Kingfisher]

i think that we die just to keep the world from becoming stagnant. if the world is always getting repopulated with new people with new ways of thinking and new ways of living, then life will will not fall into a rut or pattern.

 

[Feops]

Interesting article I found today, curious to see what people think, as it references a biological mechanism for "death" and why the hell it should be there.

Is Aging an Accident of Evolution? -A Galaxy Classic

Interesting bit, but it didn't really theorize why one would evolve a death trigger, only that this may be the case, which was already a consideration.

I'm still going to stick by my theory that reproductive cycles are optimized for average lifespans in the wild, so the body has embraced numerous genetic shortcuts that help in the short term without care for afterwards. I doubt it would be so simple as to be one gene or or even several genes ... if so, we should have seen at least a few mutations in some species that allowed an immortal exception to the rule.

Which is a shame... I think it would be fantastically interesting to have even a few individuals around who have lived centuries. I wonder how they would be treated, and how their minds would deal with continued decades of experiences. Would they be sane? Would their perspective shift dramatically? Or perhaps they would quickly reach the limits of their memory and simply forget most events past a generation ago.

 

[mortabunt]

Our death is neccessary. We start out with out maximum energy at birth, and our vital organs, because nothing can be perputal begin to decay; Eventually this decay leads to critical failures, and we die. There are lots of ways to speed up the process.

 

[shimsham]

I tend to think of it in terms of trade-offs (or, antagonistic pleiotropy).

Basically, natural selection favors individuals that produce the most offspring. Genes that increase an individual's fecundity (number of offspring) often do so at a price, with many detrimental effects such as cancer, senescence, etc. happening later in life. But, because old age and senescence happen after we've already reproduced, these genes are passed on to the next generation, despite the fact that they make us age and die.

In essence, selection cannot act against genes that reveal themselves as "bad" only after we've already reproduced. Since individuals in a species are competing to produce the most offspring and guarantee that their genes move on to the next generation, there is no selective pressure for individuals to live forever, if they can merely generate as many offspring as possible.

But, there are organisms that technically don't die. Clonal species (~asexually reproducing) may stretch our understanding of what an individual is, but they technically don't die (barring natural disasters, a disease sweeping through, etc). Individual cells will die, but they are replaced by genetic duplicates, so the overall organism survives. This is the case with many bacteria, some plants, and some animals (such as sponges).

 

[Athenian200]

Because we produce offspring. If we could produce offspring and not die, we'd infinitely multiply. Even with death, our population is getting out of control. Much higher than it was many years ago.

I believe, without much justification, that the key to eliminating death and aging, is for people to somehow change their primary function from it's current state and stop reproducing. To remove one side (death/aging), you must take away the other (births). Essentially, a being programmed primarily to reproduce should and must die. To even be fit to conquer death, we would need to reprogram ourselves to have another primary purpose, such as self-improvement.

But as long as people with the original program still exist, it won't work...

 

[Feops]

I believe, without much justification, that the key to eliminating death and aging, is for people to somehow change their primary function from it's current state and stop reproducing. To remove one side (death/aging), you must take away the other (births). Essentially, a being programmed primarily to reproduce should and must die. To even be fit to conquer death, we would need to reprogram ourselves to have another primary purpose, such as self-improvement.

So if we stop having children we've taken the first step to becoming immortal.

...

How does that make any sense at all.