TED Conversations

Anuraag Reddy

AIESEC India

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why evolution could never solve aging?

Maybe aging is an essential mechanism to clear out the old and make way for the new like cells within a body?

Maybe every form of life is already close to the upper limit of life expectancy?

Maybe aging is in the nature of carbon based life and metabolism?

Maybe we genetically sacrifice our longevity to survive the stresses of competition.

Emerging Questions:
Is it that our metabolic processes are over-compensated for dominance in their sexual prime which prove detrimental for longevity?

Is it that genes leading to different lifespans are mixed indefinitely in nature that it was never possible to select for it?

Isn't an organism with a longer span of mating at an advantage?

My hypothesis:
In the absence of change in ones environment, or competitive stresses an organism would eventually adapt itself to survive longer.

If every organism is a product of evolution then there must of course be underlying mechanisms within itself to aid such an adaptive process.

Under the influence of adaptive pressure, it would encourage mutation or variations in order create successful variations and also increase the number of life-cycles and so reducing the lifespan.

Under the influence of competitive stress, the dominance would lead to reproductive success and not the span of mating during ones lifespan.

In the absence of change in ones environment leading to adaptive pressure, or competitive stresses from rivals to prove dominance. Species would evolve longer lifespans.

Just a Theory though! But it would predict that

Lifespans of living fossils which have undergone little change in time should be greater than their relatives which have recently evolved.

Life having evolved on geographically isolated places far from intense competitive pressures should have greater lifespans.

Living things higher up in the food-chain or with few natural enemies should have greater lifespans.

Life span in pair bonding species should be higher than tournament species.

Topics: aging evolution
+16
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 28 2011: That is why we are here...to solve it.
    • Nov 28 2011: The question "Why did evolution never solve aging?" is indeed incorrectly formulated, lest it were asked an eternity from now -- currently it should read: "Why did evolution not yet solve aging".

      Assuming that homo sapiens sapiens has opened a game-changing perspective in evolution, it should be noted that humans have already made at least a few attempts to compensate for the frustration of short-termed life, e.g. with mausoleums, inheritage, posthume celebrations, etc.. More recently cloning has nutured wild hopes, and some even believe in cryogenic conservation for later resuscitation, while others try to at least perennize their thougts on the internet... with the next best thing to brain transplantation being currently heart transplantation.

      In the movie "The Fifth Element", death is orchestrated as a highly desirable, thrilling experience -- and similarly there is a more down-to-earth trend with increasing acceptance of self-requested euthanasy.

      In German we say: "Wollen k├Ânnen, was man muss, ist der Weisheit letzter Schluss" (Being able to want the unavoidable to happen is the ultima ratio of wisdom).

      After all, if human life-span were to be massively increased, the frustration of aging would increase correspondingly. Hence, solving this frustration might be the ultimate challenge awaiting humanity...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.