[b]Two things, cannot be and not be at the same time. In turn two contradicting things cannot be at the same time existing in the same place.
If we are living and growing from the day we are born, then we cannot be as was put to me the other day, dying from the day we are born.
We cannot be dying and growing/living at the same time.
Therefore this lead me to think, is it possible that death is not a necessary adjacency of life. Surely death cannot be a certainty?
If the shell (body for example) is maintained or changed will the soul or mind, or whatever it may be, continue, does our ‘soul’ have a life span? or would it live forever if maintained?
My view - Death is NOT a certainty, please give your oppinion
[/b]
We are NOT dying from the time of birth. It is generally some time in our mid 20s our cells stop regenerating, and death begins to creep apon us.
I am not formally educated in the subject of genetics, but I do know the human genome has been mapped out. Would that not include the old age gene?
If the gene responsible for the cessation of cell regeneration has indeed been isolated, the next step would be to short it out somehow.
Perhaps this has already been accomplished?
If it had, do you really think you or I would know about it?
I voted yes, but I had a few thoughts about the possibiltie of immortallity. We should not be dependant on our physical body. And computersciences could make this possible in the (near) future. But if we would be able to download our mind into a computer, how could we prevent that the computer would be destroyed? Or when we maded the galaxy some kind of internet, what would become if our universe collapsed?
It seems onlogical that something doesn’t has a beginning and a end .
In voted for depends because it depends on your definition of a human being and of death and of soul. I can toss out a few combinations here so you can see it
Human-body + soul
body - limited
soul - eternal
In this case when you die you have lost half of your nature but half stays forever
Human - body
body - limited
In this case its inevitable because you dont believe in a soul
Human - body + soul
body - limited
soul - limited
In this case it is inevitable because you do not believe in an afterlife
I believe in option number one. I think you loose the body but the soul lives on forever. Maybe you get a new body in the afterlife but either way the soul lives on forever so death is not really death in the sense that you totally die.
Yes that is very interesting. I heard that our cells are actualy programed to die, is this true? See when I thought about it I said to myself well ofcourse our cells our programed to die because at the rate they reproduce it makes sense.
But your saying old age and the bodies decrepitness is programed and mapped out?
I am saying the human genome has been mapped out…ie they know where the genes are, and what they do, within the genome.
The ‘old age gene’ (p21) has been identified to have the function of stopping celular reproduction after a certain number of divisions, generally ocuring in early adulthood. It has also recently been linked to impeding other genes from functioning, as well as being linked to certain age related debilitating diseases like arthritis and alzheimers.
So yes, the body is programmed to become decrepit.
I don’t know if it is at all feasable to ‘turn off’ p21, but if it could be done celular reproduction would, in theory, continue forever.
But if you turn p21 off, then don’t you have the problem of cells multiplying out of control? Would you not end up a blob of constantly growing flesh?
But more to the point of the original question… I voted yes, because it doesn’t matter. When you die, you die. Doesn’t affect anything in this life, nothing that I have noticed anyway. So if you view death as a grave (pun intended) finality, then you’ll naturally start to value life. It really doesn’t matter if you have an immortal soul or not, you’ll figure out when you die.
So let me ask you this question. If our mortality is programed, why? Why would we have evolved this gene? It doesn’t quite seem to make sense to me. In fact it would support the theistic argument would it not.
Over population leads to starvaton, disease, lack of space, destruction of resources, etc… These things lead to the death of the entire species. Thus from an evolutionary perspective, it is in the species as a whole’s best intrest for its individual members to die.
Or hows 'bout this: mortality is linked to desire/need/urge to propagate, thus the species thrives when individual members are mortal.
Or even: When an individual dies, it provides nurishment for countless other species, wich in turn provide food, or gas/nutrient conversions that are beneficial to the original species.
I think its amazing that we live as long as we do. There’s a lot going in inside, evolution-wise, making us live longer. The old age gene marks the limit of darwinian necessity. Meaning we don’t need to live longer then grandparent age. That was long enough for us to raise children, and then impart the wisdom (over the peace pipe) that would help to insure survival of the species. Any more living beyond grandparent age would be a burden, back then. Today, we don’t, in theory, even NEED parents for survival. And especially not grandparents. There are other ways to hand down wisdom. But I like thinking our newfangled longevity, in the next few decades, is darwinian in some sense. Religious fundamentalists will forego the immortality option and eventually die out. Armchair visionary philosophers andf science-minded folks will live longer, as will their IRAs, and they will eventually be the dominant species. Good for the planet, good for them. Then all we have to do is build a time machine, save all past humans (and animals) from death, create a virtual heaven for us all to live in, and a way to control the expansion or contraction of the universe. Maybe then God will show up and say bravo, you made daddy proud.
First this is not true from the perspective of time that this gene would have evolved at. In fact survival chances increase the bigger, stonger the herd is. And old age is a long process, those that die of old age live about 20 years in that state, many longer, so what possible evolutionary reason can there be for making an organism weak and dependant upon another for its survival for such a long duration.
Pope Lanky Wanky KSC wrote:
What has this to do with old age? Why would you link mortality to this?
Pope Lanky Wanky KSC wrote:
Many carnivors that kill for food would not eat an organism that died on its own which it didn’t kill. Insects and maggots would have plenty to live of the species that were hunted down. Are you to tell me we developed this gene to ensure the abundance and propagation of maggots…
Gamer wrote:
Not dying would also help ensure the survival of the species… In the conditions at which evolution occured having strength and ability to reason was what ensured survival.
We wouldn’t be immortal without this gene. We would still have been dying of heart attacks, disease, as prey ext. Theres no justification for us evolving a gene that makes our survival that much harder. It doesn’t make sense.
you have to look at human beings as a whole but not as individuals. certainly if there is no time control at all for how long a life can be, that the life can live on as long as it doesn’t die of diseases etc the individual can live on longer hence surviving better. however, since more humans mean bigger competition for food and resources etc, and that the longer the period of time a body has been around, the more likely that it suffers from incurable mechanical problems, the resources may be better directed to the younger generation of humans. furthermore, other than physical limitation, one can argue from a idealogical point of view as well I think. breaking traditions is the means to let a civilisation progress. having lots of thousand-year-old inevitably means that traditions will be kept and the civilisation just wouldn’t be able to go forward.
Yan
There’s no reason to look at the “old age gene” as something nature needlessly added on to an otherwise immortal being. If anything, the propensity for aging is the natural state, and the built-in mechanisms that get us farther are darwinian. Why evolution never threw away this aging gene is because it had no reason to. As far as nature cares, “not dying” does nothing for our species survival. We only need to live long enough to give birth, and then we’re expendable, in theory. Technologically and socially, it is possible to make the need for raising and protecting young irrelevant to survival.
Bottom line is, immortality has no benefit for survival of the species. It is an indulgence, and a natural reaction to the fear of death or love of life. There’s nothing wrong with it…living forever, but we shouldn’t be self-righteous about our motive.
Why do you assume that if one is around a very long time he stops learning, growing and changing?
Also, you cannot claim nature was trying to ensure civilization. You can’t make arguments that this or that occured for a purpose so that one day we may have civilization, unless natures purpose was to create civilization. (and if nature has an agenda, a purpose, then it isn’t random or chance now is it, but designed) Your making the argument that nature intended for society to progress, so be careful.
If that isn’t enough I can also reverse your idealogical argument. History many times has regressed and fallen into sort of “dark ages” because a civilization came apart and knowledge was lost which lead people to have to “re-invent the wheel” as the proverb goes.
The resources would always be directed to the healthy ones, young or old matters not because without the gene all would be young. Resourses are wasted because of the old gene since they are directed as you said yourself on the old. Those humans who suffer mechanical problems would die of as animals do in nature and they would be a far smaller number then a society with old people.
And what benefit does aging have? Since this is a gene and programed within us, this is something nature created or added on. For what purpose? My arguments have I feel fairly well demonstrated that nature had no purpose to develop such a gene, not at least one that we can comprehend right now.
it is not simply an asumption that when traditions are deeply rooted in a culture, or indeed a person, the culture or person will stick to what he knows. this is an observation rather than an asumption. I’m not saying that they can’t learn new things, however, if the new things that they are to learn contradicts what they already know, which is possible, or if the new things change the way they used to do things for example using machines as opposed to handcrafting, then it is difficult for them to learn new things.
nature is not trying to make civilisation progress to a higher state. however, a more advanced civilisation certainly helps increasing the survivability of the people. for example, a better way of governing people, the developement of morality and ethics, technological advances etc. so since a more advanced civilisation has a better chance to survive, it is natural for civilisation to exist, then progress.
I deliberately say machanical defects as opposed to wekening of biological organs to avoid this confusion. even if the gene that leads to deterioration does not get switched on, which means that all the cells in a body still metabolise in a healthy way, the mechanical faults such as those associated with bones wearing out,physical disability etc, will not be cured by mere healthy metabolism.
I think that the idealogical argument caries more weight than the physical limitation argument since an advanced civilisation is really important.
Yan
Look, the telemerase gene turns “off” because it can. There is no reason why it shouldn’t, and there is probably no reason why it should, other than occam’s razor. You’re creating a false dichotomy. Just because old age has no purpose doesn’t mean lack of old age has a purpose. Just because we have a gene that eventually stops trying doesn’t hint at divine plan. Everything in nature has limits dictating by any number or combination of factors including but not limited to physics, chance and human motive, which is arguable a combination of the first two.
Point taken. To this I can agree. But animals have this gene too. So where does your idealogical argument go when talking of animals.
The gene obviously predates humans.
But the gene is in us, meaning nature developed it. If there is no purpose to developing it, my question is why was it developed. Even if lack of old age has no purpose, it would have been the norm for the gene came later, for evolution is all about development. Thats how natural selection works.