Change is inevitable. Everything must change or it dies. Anyone born now will be better acclimated to conditions today, but anyone born 50 or 60 years ago will have to adjust to adapt to new conditions today. In that respect everything is changeable, at times simply a fad, and evolution must be ongoing or a species dies. Memes die. Technology changes or dies. I can bet nobody in your neighborhood is likely to be riding in a horse and carriage - but 100 years and 200 hundred years ago most people who traveled in public transport did ride a horse and carriage.
Biology only keeps us around long enough to reproduce (and then perhaps some contribution, though we're not sure what it is, to the success of future reproduction). There is no practical biological need to keep anyone alive beyond reproduction - unless there is some reproductive advantage for doing so. After reproduction, shut down begins the process of significant (and increased morbidity) senescence.
Men can continue to manufacture sperm almost forever, but who would want to? Who would have the patience? Women stop producing eggs when they reach a specific age, usually around 40-55 on average. After that what is the point of keeping them around (unless it is - though likely implausible - to help their daughters with their grandchildren). But dying is natural. It is going to happen and if it didn't there would be no adaptation to change and reproduction would not be successful.
It is overly simplistic to suggest the reason for life is love. Love has nothing to do with it. If a population can't be successful by adapting to a changing environment - reproduction ceases to be successful and a species dies and there would be no reason to prolong and continue with life.
Everything on the Internet is a fad also. You think anything is new and forever just because it is the popular thing to do? It didn't happen with taped music and it didn't happen with the Internet before the WEB. It didn't happen with blogs and it didn't happen with MySpace nor will FaceBook outlast something else (nor is it going to happen with Google +). The next best, better adaptation to best use would appear to be Google plus. Sometime in the future it will be something else - (or nothing at all).
In the past humans died from accidental death or infections and disease or a lack of hygiene. People on the planet still die from starvation. Today these concerns are less and there is mostly aging, what we might refer to as senescence - a pathogeric-aging cause for elderly death (heart failure, cancer of the colon, etc); and our bodies just seem to wear out. We cannot maintain homeostasis, i.e., internal constancy (a constant environment for ourselves) beyond the timed death for humans at about 122 years and the average is creeping up there. Whereas before most died in their 70s and 80s - and 50-100 years ago in their 40s and 50s, in a hundred years practically everyone should live to be over 100 years old. My father is 101 (almost 102). But, rarely anyone will be eaten by a predator. Of course we will continue our high level of predation and what we eat will be our prey, even if the slaughter house does most of the killing.
Our cells die and then when there are no longer enough cells to keep an organism functioning others die and then the organism dies. usually then considered natural causes - when everything just breaks down. One popular hypothesis for cellular senescence is the attrition of telomeric DNA; that is, the loss of telomere capping proteins (DNA repeats previously considered junk genes which consist of kilobases of TTAGGG gene code)
Senescence is the accumulative effects of internal wear and tear. Every species does it. It is usually called heart attack or cancer or a genetic disease, but it the organism's susceptibility that accompanies aging. Diminished capacity to avoid a predator or lowered immune system ability to fight off an infection or the weakness that makes an organism less likely to avoid a predator. Or shortened telemeres (as described) - or oxidative stress. Senescence is the process and it begins early; like our arteries being clogged with lumen (fat molecules) or calcification of joints and the inflammation and pain which accompanies it. Senescence increases after reproductive maturity has been achieved and significant mortality is generally delayed unless there is a genetic cause for early senescence, until at least reproductive maturity has been reached or a maximum number of cell divisions has taken place.
We Great Apes have been pretty much as we are for millions of years. Young adult members of species tribal groups had to mix and spread their genes. The system requires that young adults get out and spread their genes so they were willing to take chances your wouldn't take yourself; but think back and when you were young, I just know you thought you were immortal. I know I did. I would look danger in the face and I would think the risk of death or disability would apply to everyone else, but not to me - never to me. It was my attitude that I would never be hurt; getting hurt is what always happens to someone else. When I enlisted in the army it was to jump out of airplanes but after they tested me and trained me they sent me to the White House and during my second hitch in the army they sent me to work with the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff. I might have considered myself immortal, but the army had other ideas and my ability or capacity to understand crypto and security analysis.
I worked as a communications analyst, including voice security cryptology. I was issued civilian cloths and worked in a top secret capacity for the president. I carried a gun [sawed off shotgun being the agency weapon of choice]. I never knew then how lucky I was to be smart enough to avoid constant war, though I did experience some pretty hairy situations which could have resulted in an earlier than usual demise, I was shot at several times and I had to avoid situations which would compromise top secret intelligence - it was an entirely different kind of war then the one being fought now by National Guard. I worked with Army Security, NSA and I was regular army.
When we lose the ability to maintain internal constancy (homeostasis) the environment for cellular machines become more unusual and more difficulty to keep constant - and the engine just simply stops. That is what happens with aging. The cells can't go on. Potassium gets out, calcium gets in, etc. Nothing works well. Everything doesn't happen all at once. It is a gradual process. Shutting down is turning off but there is no magic or point between life and death when one ceases and the other begins. It is a range - a matter of days usually. If enough neurons can no longer function in a given environment some of the neurons stop working as they should and the body loses its ability to maintain internal constancy. That is death by natural causes. The terminal event might have been something else.
I realize this is not necessarily the most pleasant subject but it is factual and unless we're in love with ignorance we need to reconcile ourselves with facts.
Maybe we need two times to be put on a death certificate, the time a body loses homeostasis and the time the body stopped all processes? Yes, that is pushing the explanation to an extreme which practically no one wants to hear or cares about. Would a better question be when to stop trying to extend life?
One way we could look at it would be to somehow quantify when there is an accumulation, large enough to make an intractable difference, of mutations in the genomic DNA. Mutations cause DNA damage; it is a product of cellular metabolism, a damage event which exceeds the ability or capacity of the cell to repair itself. Mutations will be caused by radiation or reactive oxygen stress (leakage of oxygen from the manufacture in mitochondria of ATP, the energy required for cellular function). Mutations cause miscoding and incorrect instructions result in generating wrong proteins.
When considering extending life it would be wrong not to also consider the quality of life. If life extension does not also provide quality of life, it might be cruel to consider the former without the latter. And how cruel might it be to extend a life when a mate of 50 or 60 years is not there to share the joy and pain of extended life? Just speaking for myself, it would not be worth it and it would be unconscionably cruel.
As a benefit there is always the expectation of physical improvement; but what about mental improvements? And while some consider the cost benefit analysis of extending life, I think humanity requires a different kind of measure. Cost is a false yardstick. Value should be a benefit of worthwhile experience, not how much something cost to improve ones life or extend it.
But does frailty fit with the equation. If pain can be mitigated or completely eliminated should pain no longer part of the equation for when it is right or wrong or worthwhile to extend life?
Is it fair to provide advantages to individuals who can afford them over those who would like them but can't afford them? What comparison can be used, the advancement of society as a whole and those willing (or able) to pay, for example, to reduce Alzheimers or dialysis?
What about the health care delivery system in the United States (and elsewhere as well?) when the rich are provided all the advantages but the disabled, the infirm, and the poor are neglected? There is nothing fair about it, but some would say, it doesn't matter. I say it does - it should. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
Why should only the wealthy, the top few with most of the money be provided expensive drugs and costly surgery or other medical interventions while sick elderly people are told to suck it up. Doesn't their quality of life matter. Shouldn't the cost of preventing and curing cancer and cardiovascular diseases (which are generally age related diseases) be a national priority, irrespective of cost?
One in 20 babies have a significant birth defect. Half are visible at birth and the rest are discovered within the next year or so of their life.
If life cannot be improvement for everyone, the society which prevents equal access to health care, including transportation for the disabled, does not deserve to survive.
Hank Roth
Related Content
Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Sci/CoS.shtml
Today is Friday May 18, 2012