Caloric restriction slows brain aging

tateg at keydatatech.com tateg at keydatatech.com
Sun Jul 2 06:08:51 EST 2000


On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:39:33 GMT, mikalra at my-deja.com wrote:

>Yes :). Analysis with evolutionary theory demonstrates that "planned
>obsolescence" genes will always be powerfully selected AGAINST, because
>of the nature of natural selection. Such genes yield benefits to all
>competing organisms, but only accrue costs to those bearing them;
>organisms not bearing such genes will thus leave more young behind in the
>spaces left by the "altruistic," and the whole scheme will fall apart at
>the hands of the "tragedy of the commons." For an excellent, highly
>readable discussion of the point, see _Why We Age: What Science Is
>Discovering about the Body's Journey Through Life_ by Steven N. Austad.
>Paperback - 256 pages 1 edition (March 11, 1999)  John Wiley & Sons;
>ISBN: 0471296465.
>
>-Michael

An excellent point, and it sounds very reasonable. But even so there
are obvious signs that built in obsolescence is at work at least to
some extent. At least they seem obvious to me. If nothing else
consider menopause in women. After she has had her chance to have
children her body just kind of says to heck with it and starts it's
inevitable decline. It's nature's way of discarding what is no longer
useful after it has served it's purpose. 

Maybe I'm using a term that doesn't really apply in calling it
obsolesence(we as self-aware thinking beings never really become
obsolete, at least to ourselves even if we have passed our
reproductive years), let's call it a built in self destruct instead
that isn't activated until the organism is no longer useful to nature.

Thanks for the reference, I'll try to find it at the local library or
if not there at Amazon.







More information about the Ageing mailing list