Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gwarthkam" data-source="post: 240990" data-attributes="member: 1448">AI:as mentioned by another poster aging is genetic trait. the number of cell divisions in a given tissue is limited by a "timer".Free radicals in the air are not a serious problem regading aging (compared to the inevitabilities of other factors)Hikaru: "nanobots" that does what you say are not in the immediate future, cloning specific tissues and bodyparts from stem-cells can be done within 2-3 years.Meepo: Many living cells (for instance human cells) are indeed programmed to die, and the equilibrium between cancer and reproductive age would seem to reflect this. But it might be a coincidence.aging makes pefect sense in an evolutionary perspective, our genes are selected for reproduction and what happen to us after we reproduce is not of any consequence to the genes (a truth with modifications, but it's close).Survival after reproduction will only be tolerated in evolution so far as it helps the progeny.The degree of altruism that would be required by the humans in postreproductive age, in order for them to benefit the progeny enough to make them evolutionary viable, is observable in society today but pose a problem in evolutionary bilology because such altruism would initially be to costly for the individual...uhm enough rambling from me, sorry</blockquote>