I'm thinking that all life that we know of may be genetically programmed to die. Sort of a genetically imprinted expiration date.
And this is not just a result of entropy's steady assault on the ordered functions of the body; the 'shelf life' is 'intentional', worked into genetics through evolution.
Why would it be an evolutionary advantage to die? It makes no sense on the scale of the individual, but on the scale of populations, of species, it does make sense. If the old don't grow weaker and die, their greater experience and/or continued growth gives them an advantage over the up-and-coming younger crowd. Great for those individuals, but bad for the population, because that means they have much less genetic flexibility their ability to evolve quickly and change to suit changes in their environment is reduced, possibly to near zero in an extreme case.
So, we then get evolution on a macro scale. Natural selection begins promoting or eliminating whole populations, based on their ability to evolve to suit new conditions.
Obviously, however, organisms that die too quickly will not get a good chance of passing on genes, and will also be selected against. So, we have two forces pressing pre-programmed life expectancy in opposite directions. The interest of a population's flexibility presses the age down, while the interest of an individual's ability to pass on genes presses upwards on it. Eventually, a balance is reached, setting the pre-programmed death age for that particular species or population.
Am I right?
And this is not just a result of entropy's steady assault on the ordered functions of the body; the 'shelf life' is 'intentional', worked into genetics through evolution.
Why would it be an evolutionary advantage to die? It makes no sense on the scale of the individual, but on the scale of populations, of species, it does make sense. If the old don't grow weaker and die, their greater experience and/or continued growth gives them an advantage over the up-and-coming younger crowd. Great for those individuals, but bad for the population, because that means they have much less genetic flexibility their ability to evolve quickly and change to suit changes in their environment is reduced, possibly to near zero in an extreme case.
So, we then get evolution on a macro scale. Natural selection begins promoting or eliminating whole populations, based on their ability to evolve to suit new conditions.
Obviously, however, organisms that die too quickly will not get a good chance of passing on genes, and will also be selected against. So, we have two forces pressing pre-programmed life expectancy in opposite directions. The interest of a population's flexibility presses the age down, while the interest of an individual's ability to pass on genes presses upwards on it. Eventually, a balance is reached, setting the pre-programmed death age for that particular species or population.
Am I right?
