In <obogler-0104951308320001 at obogler.extern.ucsd.edu> obogler at ucsd.edu
(Oliver Bogler) writes:
>The question is, I agree, to what extent external processes affect ageing.
>In other words, can environmental differences or biochemical differences
>that are inherent really change the way we age? This would offer avenues
>of intervention.
Exactly. The issue then becomes: On which processes do we focus to achieve
the most effective intervention?
This is why a reeaxination of what constitutes an aging process is
necessary. By excluding from aging the myriad common life-limiting
processes that aren't universal we may be throwing out the baby with the
bath water.
We may also be severely limiting our chances of success by assuming that
a single process can explain mortality in the oldest old of any species.
Much emphasis is placed on changes to "maximum lifespan" as a measure
of the effectiveness of any intervention - but if no single process is
to blame then it's likely that no _single_ intervention will change this
maximum.
It's possible that MULTIPLE known interventions could extend maximum
lifespan. We could already have effective tools without knowing it.
Steve
--
________________________
(I_lurk,_therefore_I_am!_\ ,,, Steve Chambers
(o o) steve at chambers.ak.planet.co.nz
----------------------oOO--(_)--OOo-----------------------------
(c) Steve Chambers 1995. All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------
