LONGECITY

Abstract: The argument presented here is that aging and death is an important method of allowing a species to survive longer. In competition with immortal species, aging species will prune off their elders in order to make way for change that the younger generation will adapt more readily to.

Article Link: http://www.fightagin...rld-changes.php

Full PDF Paper: http://arxiv.org/PS_...1103.4649v1.pdf

Reaction to a response posted by an individual at the above mentioned Fight Aging article:

Right, the article: &quot;Old age begins at 27: Scientists reveal new research into ageing&quot; <a href='http://www.dailymail...article-1162052' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.dailymail...cle-1162052</a> from 15th March 2009 informs: The research at the University of Virginia, reported in the academic journal Neurobiology Of Aging, found that the first age of humans at which performance was significantly lower than the peak scores was 27. Nevertheless, aging in plants and animals is not unnatural. Aging in the current population of humans, however, is not natural either. Humans are doing all sorts of unnatural stuff with their brains. Designing software and writing with computers, for instance, most of it is unnatural. Yet, any normal human being is doing much unnatural stuff, because of the larger human brain. Thus, an aging human being is unnatural, because of a larger brain size that demands too much time for the process of senescence until it has eliminated the outdated individual from the genetic pool. Someone should come and fix this.

Hope the above reaction will be approved to appear at Fight Aging too.
Edited by robomoon, 27 March 2011 - 04:30 PM.

Reaction to a response posted by an individual at the above mentioned Fight Aging article:

Right, the article: &quot;Old age begins at 27: Scientists reveal new research into ageing&quot; <a href='http://www.dailymail...article-1162052' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.dailymail...cle-1162052</a> from 15th March 2009 informs: The research at the University of Virginia, reported in the academic journal Neurobiology Of Aging, found that the first age of humans at which performance was significantly lower than the peak scores was 27. Nevertheless, aging in plants and animals is not unnatural. Aging in the current population of humans, however, is not natural either. Humans are doing all sorts of unnatural stuff with their brains. Designing software and writing with computers, for instance, most of it is unnatural. Yet, any normal human being is doing much unnatural stuff, because of the larger human brain. Thus, an aging human being is unnatural, because of a larger brain size that demands too much time for the process of senescence until it has eliminated the outdated individual from the genetic pool. Someone should come and fix this.

Hope the above reaction will be approved to appear at Fight Aging too.

Actually I was surprised that a response like that had not appeared from Fight Aging. Because that's something along the lines of what I was thinking after I had finished reading it. We are definitely a kind of species that have enough intelligence and technological developments to overcome this problem. Then again, maybe Reason is just posting this argument for the sake of showing there are these kinds of arguments.

That does mean we need to keep senescence for adaptation, people dying of aging are dying for nothing. Because we do not adapt by growing fur - we are using technologies to adapt, in case of a cold weather we are putting on clothing .

Species are not going to adapt to the meteor killing the Earth scenario. We along can deal with this peril by building Earth #2. However we need more brain power to do so, we need to stop ageing to accumulate enough knowledge and wisdom. Often it takes a lifetime to become professional, sadly only to retire right away.

Indeed aging is a program written with DNA code, and we have to learn how to change it. It case we do that, the late life ontogeny will be: maintaining the perfect 21 yo body heath and vigour. It's a complex correction, because neirogenesis and perhaps billion different things must be taken into account.
We are going to have to hack the aging, that a plan A. Perhaps we can mimic the youth metabolism with great deal of therapies, and that's the plan B.

More brain power is what we need. Correct. So why is it that there are smart people still providing http://folding.stanford.edu at Stanford University who want to make use of some of the very limited computations that PC users like me can extend with processing from their personal computers? Is it that people like me should not own all of the AI their PC's can give for themselves? Am I not dull enough, despite of an explicit declaration here http://www.longecity...l-people-duller and further unintelligent efforts?

<br />Species are not going to adapt to the meteor killing the Earth scenario. We along can deal with this peril by building Earth #2. However we need more brain power to do so...<br />

<br /><br /><br />