Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gwarthkam" data-source="post: 241277" data-attributes="member: 1448">Rackhir: I think you got the cancer-cell/immortality concept a bit backwards <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Zappo: The idea of making a "backup" of a persons "mind" and loading it back into a "fresh brain" has several problems, one of them being that the "mind" might be occupying a much larger portion of the body than the brain, cases like adopted traits through organ transplants would indicate this (don't know much about this).As far as I know (Canis might correct me on this one) there's not much evidence suggesting that the entire memory is confined to the brain. There are several hypothesis floating around, the latest I heard was an american scientist (don't remember her name) suggesting that there might be singled celled memory due to rearrangement of microtubuli, if that were the case the maximum possible amount of  "memory" in the brain would be extremely high compared to any current estimate.Regarding the age after reproduction issue I regard it as the genes not really caring about your well being after reproductive age, not intentional execution. But that's a viewpoint only supported by my subjective guesstimation of the evolutionary pressure due to resource consumption and the fitness benefit from non reproductive close relatives (that and because I would like to belive that neutral drift is an important factor in selection pressure for aging people).Canis: I was just briefly mentioning the problems with Altruism in evolution because it seems fair (to the elderly) not to imply that they are useless <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />There's another evolutionary problem, besides altruism, that makes the whole subject even more muddy and that's the "benefit" gained from fitness through adaptability. It could be argued that short generations could be an asset to a population since it makes adaption through evolution faster and thus more resilient to changes in the environment. The problem with this viewpoint is that there's really no immediate benefit for the individual who is carrying this "potential" and though it might benefit the population in the long run, it's bound to be a genetic trait that would be ruined by any mutation yielding longer reproductive age to an individual. Fitness through potential that doesn't help the individual right here and now is very "risky", and if the potential is costly in any way it is not likely to be succesfull in an evolutionary perspective.My advice to immortality seekers would be to belive in reincarnation of some sort.</blockquote>

Verification