Why do we die?

Norsefire said:
Yes, but if you replace the organs you replace the cells within those organs. Why can't the cells simply replenish resources? Or, better yet, why can't cells replenish themselves, so that our body naturally and easily replaces every cell in our body when it needs to?

Is there no way to achieve immortality?
Click to expand...
The human body was designed to last just long enough to reproduce and raise your children to the age that they can have children of their own.

What is one generation? 20 years. Most people are healthy, whether they take care of themselves or not, for the first forty years of their lives. After that, we're coasting.

Nature probably "decided" it was simplier to start fresh than to try to repair an aging human body. Even if our knowledge grows to the point we have complete control over our bodies and can regenerate organs, could we regenerate our brains and still maintain the memories that make us us?
 
i'm surprised that no-one has come up with the evolutionary answer to why we die : it's all a matter of how much of your limited resources you apply to keeping your body in good condition

because in life a body has limited resources at its disposal, some of which are used to maintain the body in good shape, and some to produce the next generation, it has to "decide" (sorry for the teleological slant here, despite appearances there is no purpose to natural selection, but it's often easier to describe things as if it had) how to apportion these resources

depending on your chances to get eaten by something else, you may "decide" to invest most of your effort into producing offspring and very little in repair, because whatever happens, your life expectancy is low anyway (think mouse)

on the other hand you may "decide" to keep your body well maintained, but that leaves fewer resources to make babies (think elephant)

in the end it's not all that different from having a car : if you maintain it well, chances are that it will last longer than if you don't, except if you happen to live in the accident capital of the world, in which case you'd better save your money to buy a new car rather than spend it on maintenance
 
marnixR said:
i'm surprised that no-one has come up with the evolutionary answer to why we die : it's all a matter of how much of your limited resources you apply to keeping your body in good condition

because in life a body has limited resources at its disposal, some of which are used to maintain the body in good shape, and some to produce the next generation, it has to "decide" (sorry for the teleological slant here, despite appearances there is no purpose to natural selection, but it's often easier to describe things as if it had) how to apportion these resources

depending on your chances to get eaten by something else, you may "decide" to invest most of your effort into producing offspring and very little in repair, because whatever happens, your life expectancy is low anyway (think mouse)

on the other hand you may "decide" to keep your body well maintained, but that leaves fewer resources to make babies (think elephant)

in the end it's not all that different from having a car : if you maintain it well, chances are that it will last longer than if you don't, except if you happen to live in the accident capital of the world, in which case you'd better save your money to buy a new car rather than spend it on maintenance
Click to expand...

Did you read the whole thread ? ;)
 
we die because no one wants to look after us when we are 99yrs old wetting ourselves and have no teeth.
 
Fraggle

I love science and I don't agree that having a spiritual point of view on the subject of death can be considered to be anti science or as you put it, "giving up on science". I don't wish to start a debate but I just disagree with your apparent assumption(maybe I'm misunderstanding you but that's what I get out of it) that if you believe in science that you cannot believe in any sort of religion. Science began because of a desire to gain a deeper understanding of what goes on around us and why it happens. I don't believe it requires us to deny religion and spirituality to be considered a scientist and attempt to understand more about the universe.
 
Enmos said:
Did you read the whole thread ? ;)
Click to expand...

i tried to - i may have skipped the odd bit here and there
sorry if i'm repeating things but can't remember seeing the issue discussed from the evolutionary angle anywhere
 
marnixR said:
i tried to - i may have skipped the odd bit here and there
sorry if i'm repeating things but can't remember seeing the issue discussed from the evolutionary angle anywhere
Click to expand...

Well.. I just said that we die to make place for other. Indicating evolutionary cause ;)
Bit vague though, i know.
 
Enmos said:
Well.. I just said that we die to make place for other. Indicating evolutionary cause ;)
Bit vague though, i know.
Click to expand...

quite a different angle to it though - hadn't really recognised it as an evolutionary spin on things

besides, is this really how things work ? living beings aren't usually that generous in giving up the ghost just to make room for someone else
imo what you're describing is more like a consequence rather than a cause
 
marnixR said:
quite a different angle to it though - hadn't really recognised it as an evolutionary spin on things

besides, is this really how things work ? living beings aren't usually that generous in giving up the ghost just to make room for someone else
imo what you're describing is more like a consequence rather than a cause
Click to expand...

Not really, even in embryotic development cells die for the greater good.
And what about the ant bridges ?
It is both consequence and evolution. Think about old members that are expelled from the group. It is evolutionary behavior.
 
Enmos said:
Think about old members that are expelled from the group. It is evolutionary behavior.
Click to expand...

surely you're not implying that old members willingly expel themselves for the greater good ? it's the others that do the expelling, after all
 
What an open question, there is a spiritual answer and their is a practical answer. The practical answer can be summed up with one word, CHANGE. Change is a constant threat...hence evolution, to allow organisms to change and adapt to changing conditions over time. Adaptabiltiy is a good thing if you an organism. Because ultimately things will change. The shorter the reproduction cycle, the more adaptable a species is. The more intelligent, the more adaptable a species. It all boils down to CHANGE and the ability to adapt to new circumstances. Change in and of itself is a survival advantage.
 
joepistole said:
What an open question, there is a spiritual answer and their is a practical answer. The practical answer can be summed up with one word, CHANGE. Change is a constant threat...hence evolution, to allow organisms to change and adapt to changing conditions over time. Adaptabiltiy is a good thing if you an organism. Because ultimately things will change. The shorter the reproduction cycle, the more adaptable a species is. The more intelligent, the more adaptable a species. It all boils down to CHANGE and the ability to adapt to new circumstances. Change in and of itself is a survival advantage.
Click to expand...

Good points, although for the reproduction cycle to be short an organism doesn't have to have a short lifespan.
 
Enmos said:
Good points, although for the reproduction cycle to be short an organism doesn't have to have a short lifespan.
Click to expand...

True, the other part of that is dying after an appropriate period of time frees up resources and opportunities for younger generations. So death is the last part of the change cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top