Shapeshifting

Change is inevitable. Everything must change or it dies. Anyone born now will be better acclimated to conditions today, but anyone born in the last century will have to adjust to to new conditions today. In that respect everything is changeable, at times what goes on is simply a fad or trend, but biologically 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 buggy - but early in the last century people still rode in a horse and a carriage. How many of your kids have ever been in a horse pulled carriage? How many of you have traveled by horse and carriage? Without change; without shapeshifting, life as we know it terminates and we relinquish this mortal coil.

"By the early 1910s, the number of automobiles had surpassed the number of buggies, but their use continued well into the 1920s...During the 1930s, unemployment due to the Great Depression and high gasoline prices meant many car owners in the U.S. and Canada could no longer afford to drive." (wikipedia)

Biology only keeps us around long enough to reproduce (and then we senesce). There is no practical biological need to survive much beyond reproduction - unless there is some reproductive advantage for doing so. After reproduction, shut down begins the process of of significant senescence and morbidity begins.

Men can continue to manufacture sperm, but who would want to? Who would have the patience for children after maturity? Women stop producing eggs when they reach post reproductive maturity, usually around 40-55 on average. After that what is the point of keeping parents around unless it is - though likely implausible - to help with grandchildren? Dying is natural. It is going to happen and if it didn't there would be diminished or no adaptation to change and reproduction would not be successful.

It is overly simplistic to suggest the reason of life is for love. Love is a shared physical attraction, a means for sharing burdens and an occasional deception. But, if a population can't be successful at adapting to a changing environment reproduction ceases to be successful and the species dies.

Everything in life is a fad or a trend. Do you think there is anything that is new or will last forever just because it is popular now? It doesn't work that way. Nothing is new and everything is new. And there will always be new fads and new trends.

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 and from disease and accidents. We die of senescence - a pathogeric-aging cause for elderly death and our bodies just seem to wear out. We cannot maintain homeostasis, i.e., internal constancy (a constant environment for ourselves) beyond an average timed death.

Our cells die first and then when there are no longer enough homeostasis to keep an organism functioning and the body dies - 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 outrun one. Or shortened telemeres (as described above) - or oxidative stress. Senescence is the process and it begins early; our arteries clog with lumen, etc.

Senescence increases after reproductive maturity has been achieved and a maximum number of cell divisions has taken place. It is all downhill from here.

We Homo sapiens have been pretty much as we were for hundreds of thousands of years. Young adult members of species tribal groups mix with other groups and spread around their genes. The system requires it so young adults were willing to take chances your wouldn't take yourself now; but think back when you were young and full of piss and vinegar, when you just knew you were invincible and immortal.

Getting hurt or killed is generally what happens to someone else. When I enlisted in the army it was to jump out of airplanes but after I was tested and schooled, I was sent 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 it didn't include jumping out of airplanes or flying them, which is also what I wanted to do. I worked in voice security and I was issued civilian cloths. (I was regular army but did not work as a uniformed soldier).

When we lose the ability to maintain internal constancy (homeostasis) the environment for cellular function becomes more difficult to maintain constancy - and cells slow down and simply stops and so does everything else also. The cells can't go on working. Potassium rushes out, calcium rushes in. And mitochondria stops making energy. It 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 to be. And if enough neurons can no longer function in a given environment those neurons stop working and the body loses its ability to maintain internal constancy. That is death by natural causes. The terminal event might have been something else but it is a shut-down of the equipment. The machine stops working.

Life Extension

When considering extending life it would be wrong not to also consider the quality of that life. If life extension does not also provide quality of life, it might be cruel to consider the former without the latter. How cruel might it be to extend a life when the person you have lived with for 50 or 60 years is not there to share the joy and pain of an extended life? Just speaking for myself, it would not be worth it and extending life under those circumstances 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 measurement Cost is a false yardstick. Value should be a benefit of worthwhile experience, not how much something cost to improve ones life or extend to it.

But does frailty fit with the equation. If pain can be mitigated or completely eliminated should pain no longer be a 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 to pay to, for example, reduce Alzheimers or dialysis against those who can't afford it?

What about the health care delivery system when the rich are provided all the advantages that money can buy, but the disabled, the infirm, and the poor are neglected and ignored? There is nothing fair about that. Some would say, it doesn't matter. I say it does - it should.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs"

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 also? 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. They and their parents will endure a painful and difficult life. Would not a decent society also consider them and provide for their needs?

If life cannot be an 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

###