Adrian Gonzalez

Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico

About Adrian

Languages

English, Spanish

I'm passionate about

People, Technology, Art, Ideas

Talk to me about

Technology, Philosophy, Physiology, Theology, Art, Books, Behavioral economics

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

137585
Adrian Gonzalez
Posted over 3 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
If you meant "Maximum life span" it has to be something related to DNA. From what I understand yes they share a common DNA while they are at a larva stage but the level of care and nourishment the larvae receive will determine their eventual adult form. "Analysis of ... new ant genomes suggests that chemical modification of certain sections of DNA could be responsible for the differential development of queens and workers. As an ant larva develops, DNA methylation ... may switch off the genes that control reproductive capacity and wing growth." AND I WOULD ADD IT ALSO SWITCH THE RATE OF AGING. SOURCE: -Newly Decoded Ant Genomes Provide Clues On Ant Social Life, Pest Control- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110131153244.htm
137585
Adrian Gonzalez
Posted over 3 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
If you mean "average lifespan" is makes sense that queen ant lives longer than the others ants which are more susceptible to disease, get killed, have worst food, work more, etc. all kind of environmental and behavioral factors. this is the tedtalk about it: http://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants.html
137585
Adrian Gonzalez
Posted over 3 years ago
Would society benefit or suffer from volunteering replacing employment?
It is not clear that the "volunteer system is DEFINITELY better in theory" than the "Capitalism system in theory". And DEFINITELY it is not better in practice. All the downsides of Capitalism (as we know it now) that you mentioned are just a chance to improve on top of it. Jacqueline Novogratz proposes a middle way she calls patient capital, with promising examples of entrepreneurial innovation driving social change. (http://www.ted.com/talks/jacqueline_novogratz_a_third_way_to_think_about_aid.html)
137585
Adrian Gonzalez
Posted over 3 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
When talking about evolution and ageing, it is not very useful to talk about "mean lifespan" but "Maximum life span". Maximum life span is in contrast with mean life span (average life span or life expectancy). Mean life span varies with susceptibility to disease, accident, suicide and homicide, whereas maximum life span is determined by "rate of aging". The differences in life span between species demonstrate the role of genetics in determining maximum life span ("rate of aging").
137585
Adrian Gonzalez
Posted over 3 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
First, I would disagree that evolution didn't solve "ageing", it solved it very well by allowing it to happened and by determining the right life span for every specie. Second, I disagree that after the species manages to secure two offspring to produce progeny of their own they could very well die, in many cases the first generation has to teach the second generation how to raise the third one, to ensure the survival of the species. I would guess this is particularly true in species with few offspring and great child mortality.
137585
Adrian Gonzalez
Posted over 3 years ago
Would society benefit or suffer from volunteering replacing employment?
VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION IS WITHOUT DOUBT WHAT MOVES HUMANITY FORWARD (Doing something NOT because someone is paying you to do it but out of intrinsic motivation and satisfaction). PUTTING YOUR HEART AND YOUR CREATIVITY INTO A TASK IS SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE BOUGHT, some companies are asking their employees to volunteer their hearts/minds into tasks that serve the interest of the employer, the employee and society. So VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS CAN BE DONE WITH IN AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP. This kind of dynamic definitely benefits society a lot as it unleash the best in people.. -"As more … jobs are replaced by technology, will it become possible for society to function through voluntary contribution?" -I would say, not necessarily. Technology only replace jobs when it is cheaper than hiring a person, in countries with a big unskilled population the process is slow, moreover, after people lose their jobs they only go to another industry were technology is more expensive than people, they don’t start volunteering more. VOLUNTEERING CAN ONLY COME AFTER I MET SOME BASIC NEEDS FIRST, different people have different ideas of what a "basic need" is, that line becomes a psychological barrier to volunteering. It is not the threat of poverty by unemployment what limits us but our desire standard of living. Once we obtained it (by either decreasing our desires or increasing our income), we start volunteering in the way that best fits us. Although WE SHOULD GET BETTER AT GETTING FEEDBACK ON WHAT SOCIETY REALLY NEEDS OTHERWISE WE ARE JUST BUSY WITHOUT ACHIEVING MUCH. VOLUNTEERING SHOULD NOT REPLACE EMPLOYMENT BUT BUILT ON TOP OF IT, replacing it would be bad for the economy, it would put another person out of work and destroyed the incentive to study or practice that activity. “VOLUNTEERING” (IN THE TRADITIONAL MEANING OF THE WORD) SHOULD BE USE TO HELP SOLVE MARKET FAILURES, place resources (goods and services) in the hand of those that need them the most.
137585
Adrian Gonzalez
Posted over 3 years ago
Why evolution could never solve aging?
I would argue that the life span of the human species hasn't been make longer, only the number of years that any person is expected to live on average. It means that a 1000 years ago there were people that could live a 100 years or more but on average the life expectancy was much lower because a lot of people died as a child. Nowadays thought better sanitary conditions and medicine less people die at a young age so the life expectancy increases, but it has nothing to do with the life span of the human species as a whole (life span is an evolutionary phenomenon, how many years you actually live is a matter of environment and behavior). I would guess that people that survive their childhood a 1000 years ago had better genes that make them lived longer; because today we have many ways to save children that couldn't be saved before we are preserving arguably weaker genes that eventually could diminish the human lifespan. (PD.sorry if any gramatical mistakes, english is my second language)