Why do we die?

[JocktheMotie]

Senescence, of course. I guess you're really asking why our bodies are programmed to engage in the inevitable decay of cells. Yes?

Yes. I don't know why this mechanism would ever evolve. I would think bodies would try to maintain it's physical and reproductive peak indefinitely until it dies.

 

[ptgatsby]

However your initial point involved an "immortal" class without a desirable survival trait vs. a mortal class with one.

I did? The point was that being immortal means non adaptive, which is a emergent survival "trait". The trait of being non-adapative and hitting the resource barrier earlier is an inherent quality of immortality. Put simply - it is not efficient to live forever and nature drive inefficiencies to extinction.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I did? The point was that being immortal means non adaptive, which is a emergent survival "trait". The trait of being non-adapative and hitting the resource barrier earlier is an inherent quality of immortality. Put simply - it is not efficient to live forever and nature drive inefficiencies to extinction.

I don't see how you can say that a being without an inherent death mechanism is by definition not adaptive. Capacity to deal with a change in surroundings is predetermined genetically. Your physiology will either be able to deal with the change, or it will not. Also, there would be genetic differentiation among the immortal group just as there would be among the mortal group. Again, I don't see how the likelihood of owning a survival trait would be more common among a mortal group than an immortal one. It's relatively unrelated. If anything, during periods when the immortal group is selected as the "best" mate and preferred, their offspring will be more numerous because they would retain optimal reproductive ability longer. A larger pool also supposes larger differentiation, further increasing the likelihood the immortal group is better prepared to present a survival trait when the environment changes.

 

[Lateralus]

An immortal group is going to fill up its biological niche more quickly than a mortal group because resources are limited, unless they slow their rate of reproduction. You're then going to have a different mechanism for selection, one which doesn't necessarily promote the long-term survival of the species.

 

[ptgatsby]

I don't see how you can say that a being without an inherent death mechanism is by definition not adaptive.

Think of it in reverse:

If a gene is immortal, why have children? (Forget about people, just think of the genes)

 

[JocktheMotie]

Immortal in the sense that I am using it does not mean something that the environment cannot destroy. Obviously, said organism can be eaten by a tiger or fall down a cliff, however his body will not begin to shut itself down after a period of time.

And any lifeform procreates, that's why it's alive and not a rock. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[ptgatsby]

And any lifeform procreates, that's why it's alive and not a rock. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm not really sure how I can explain what I'm saying, I'm afraid.

All I can say is that the fitness of the individual does not take precedence over the group in evolution, and I believe this is such a case. It's the case even in cellular life, and we make use of planned obsolescence in a similar way. I believe it is about diversity - finite resources and interbreeding, along with the implications on adaption.

 

[01011010]

Yes. I don't know why this mechanism would ever evolve. I would think bodies would try to maintain it's physical and reproductive peak indefinitely until it dies.

Why does programmed cell death, or apoptosis, occur? Does it take place among bacteria and fungi or only in the cells of higher organisms? : Scientific American

All I can say is that the fitness of the individual does not take precedence over the group in evolution, and I believe this is such a case. It's the case even in cellular life, and we make use of planned obsolescence in a similar way. I believe it is about diversity - finite resources and interbreeding, along with the implications on adaption.

I agree.

 

[Noel]

I feel a great comfort in knowing that my body may potentially provide nutrients for a young blossoming tree to grow or a sustaining foraging animal's appetite for a time. Nevermind coffins. They simply affirm ones existence as apart rather than a part of continuity. I've taken from the earth and I want to give my nutrients to it.

 

[violaine]

^Wow, this is exactly the way I comfort myself about the eventuality of death.

 

[JocktheMotie]

You know, I'm not really that concerned with death. Which has always gotten me funny looks. I had just wondered as to the evolutionary benefit and the initial irony of death being a survivability trait in groups.

 

[Lateralus]

I feel a great comfort in knowing that my body may potentially provide nutrients for a young blossoming tree to grow or a sustaining foraging animal's appetite for a time. Nevermind coffins. They simply affirm ones existence as apart rather than a part of continuity. I've taken from the earth and I want to give my nutrients to it.

I'm just the opposite. I hope someone digs me up in a few hundred years and revives my corpse. Maybe I can terrorize a city or something.

 

[JocktheMotie]

I'm just the opposite. I hope someone digs me up in a few hundred years and revives my corpse. Maybe I can terrorize a city or something.

I'm a big fan of superfreezing myself and blasting my coffin into space with a constantly updating encyclopedia. Maybe some aliens will pick me up and revive me. Then the fun experiments start!

 

[AOA]

When we're dead, what would anything matter any way (to us) - even supposedly if (hopefully) our genes did pass on?

 

[Qre:us]

I heard this interesting phrase from an evolutionary psych prof when asked why we die (what is the evolutionary advantage of death).

His response: evolution - it's all about: live fast, love hard, and die young.

Competition. Either you use your energy to get bigger antlers, or, conserve energy, be mediocre and have longevity. Evolution adheres to the former. The 'fittest' of the species usually died the youngest, because they played it the hardest, which showed them at their 'fittest', which thus, helped be selected.

Interesting.

... "I'd rather live a short life of glory, than a long life of ..." - Alexander the Great

Thanks, that made me feel a little better about my life...

I know this is a bit late in coming. I always remember all the stuff on my to-do/answer list but, a timeline of when I get around to it, is a whole another matter. Only guarantee with me - I will get around to it, without fail.

....eventually.

But, here to hoping you still have some interest :

We can start with an assumption of: trade off. There's always a trade off.

Now, given the above....we can see some examples:

a)In birds with ornate plumage.

Do they have drab plumage and up their chance of not being that easily spotted by predators but down their chance of getting lucky?

Competition (for sexual selection) drives this, at the within group/species level.

Death doesn't win out as a motivator.

b) Sexual size Dimorphism

Do they trade in being bigger and more agile versus lower body mass (i.e., lower intake of energy, lower resources for sustainability at the level of individual self).

Again, the latter loses out as motivator


I guess it is that evolution drives the survival of the fittest within species, but, as a whole, drives survival of the species itself. So, sometimes, although it may seem counter-intuitive, it becomes about what of mine will remain the longest as a stamp in this world. What of mine will take the hardest/longest to die off, even at the cost of me dying myself; given our beginning assumption that there's always a trade-off.

 

[Little Linguist]

Interesting question, I always wondered: Why don't we want to die?

 

[Qre:us]

Interesting question, I always wondered: Why don't we want to die?

Because we'd no longer be able to be.

 

[Feops]

Interesting question, I always wondered: Why don't we want to die?

Instinctively we've been bred to cherish survival. Conceptually we're aware that we will die anyway. Self-awareness is what prevents simply passing our genes along to satisfy our urge for immortality - knowing that our unique persona will be lost even if an aspect of oneself continues.

Or at least, that's my take on it.

 

[FDG]

Interesting question, I always wondered: Why don't we want to die?

The relatively simple, but perhaps not very interesting, response is: because all those that did not care about not dying were dead before having any offspring, and thus do not exist anymore.

As far as the OP goes, I think it would be analytically simpler to start from another question: why don't we not die? A trivial answer would be: so far, there has not been the occasion for
- a gene mutation that led to the possibility of non-death
- an environment that selected for the above mentioned gene mutation
i think that, instead of trying to find complex systemic descriptions of the situation, it's easier (and more likely) to simply reconduct the current state of the world to chance. The focus has almost immediatly gone towards the second statemet i.e. why wouldn't the environment select non-death?

 

[SuperServal]

We don't die - our genes live on in the next generation.

All that 'dies' is our ego.

And what a production we make of it. But our genes give rise to new ego after new ego. There are, after all, six thousand million egos here today.

Our ego is simply they eyes of our genes - and our genes can produce eyes whenever they want to.

Hmmmm. I wonder if the ego you are talking about is different from awareness. I've often wondered why I am not some other person. The answer is not: because both of you have different genes and different life experiences so you can't be him. This is the traditional definition of the ego; something that is attached to our sensory awareness.

But awareness underlies the ego. It underlies thinking, feeling, and the personality. Simple sensory perception of the world is pure life experience. What I have wondered is why am I not the awareness of somebody else?

Why am I in this collection of cells and why does my awareness have these genetics attached to them? My consciousness could have just as easily been in that guy over there or that woman walking down the street. Why am I perceiving the world through this body and this mind?

Maybe it is this awareness that is common to every person alive (and animals) that is perpetuating genes in order to be able to manifest in the physical world.

If this awareness is the same across humanity and other living beings then it certainly does not die unless all life dies.

But you are right, the ego, the sense of self, dies. What if our awareness does not die and it goes back into a collective awareness pool? I wonder if awareness and consciousness increase in intensity if individual awarenesses are aggregated. Or it could be like a fractal.....one huge reserve of consciousness is just the same as an individual's consciousness. Zoom to any scale and the pattern is the same.