I’m very much a Darwinian. This means I must ask myself questions like ‘How come all surviving cultures until modern time have been based on religion?’ and I draw the conclusion that religion has somehow helped people and civilizations to survive.

In the same way I ask ‘how come all sexually reproducing forms of life age (unlike e.g. amoebas, or yeast)?’ and its the same conclusion - in different words now: ‘if there has ever been a sexually reproducing species that did not age, they have not survived to tell the story’. Have there existed such failed species, then? I’m suggesting that its likely, because (unless I’m misinformed) aging is a ‘feature’.

Around the age of 45 the human body ’switches on’ aging, or rather, it switches off the function that keeps us young. Much of the research today is (unless I’m misinformed) about how to keep the stay-young-function ON. 

To be provocative - the ambition to stop aging can be seen as disrespectful of the wisdom of Darwinian nature and it has a slant toward man-made creationism.

It’s not going to end well, in each case. 

David Nordfors

It struck me as so very right - little to argue with, so recording for posterity!

RelBasil Hallward is what I think I am: Lord Henry is what the world thinks of me: Dorian is what I would like to be.

Oscar Wilde

Related Links

The Picture Of Dorian Gray - the book is on this list.

Darwin on Aging Theory

Why hasn’t evolution dealt with the inefficiency of ageing?

Thinking Allowed

This is a People First post that was originally on the People First domain. It has been moved here as part of my domain consolidation program. It’s a steady and slow WIP as I check each entry, so do please bear with me.