SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Aging is a natural part of life, but that hasn't stopped people from embarking on efforts to stop the process. Unfortunately, perhaps, those attempts are futile, according to University of Arizona researchers who have proved that it's mathematically impossible to halt aging in multicellular organisms like humans. "Aging is mathematically inevitable - like, seriously inevitable. There's logically, theoretically, mathematically no way out," said Joanna Masel, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and at the UA.
Masel and UA postdoctoral researcher Paul Nelson outline their findings on math and aging in a new study titled "Intercellular Competition and Inevitability of Multicellular Aging," published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Current understanding of the evolution of aging leaves open the possibility that aging could be stopped if only science could figure out a way to make selection between organisms perfect. One way to do that might be to use competition between cells to eliminate poorly functioning "sluggish" cells linked to aging, while keeping other cells intact. However, the solution isn't that simple, Masel and Nelson say.
Two things happen to the body on a cellular level as it ages, Nelson explains. One is that cells slow down and start to lose function, like when your hair cells, for example, stop making pigment. The other thing that happens is that some cells crank up their growth rate, which can cause cancer cells to form. As we get older, we all tend, at some point, to develop cancer cells in the body, even if they're not causing symptoms, the researchers say. Masel and Nelson found that even if natural selection were perfect, aging would still occur, since cancer cells tend to cheat when cells compete.
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-mathematically-impossible-aging-scientists.html
[Abstract]: Intercellular competition and the inevitability of multicellular aging
So, either you die of old age or you die of cancer. Choose wisely !!
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 31 2017, @04:46PM
First, the space of possible mutations is huge. A human genome has around 147 million base pairs. Each base pair can be one of 4 states, but even if we assumed that they were binary values then that's about 147 megabytes of genetic data. If you created one new random variation every nanosecond, you'd be nowhere near the search space.
Second, while immortality is desirable for individuals, it's not likely to be a species survival trait (at least, prior to species survival relying on specialised technology). If an individual did possess this mutation a thousand years ago, they'd likely have been out-competed (read: killed) by populations that didn't have this mutation.
Third, as I mentioned above, the probability of dying by misadventure increases over time. I seem to recall a study a few years back that claimed that if you had a mutation that makes you immune to all diseases and to ageing, your average lifespan would be around 300 years. A 300-year-old has had ten times as many opportunities to die in an accident than a 30-year-old. Roll the dice enough times and eventually you lose.
Fourth, if you did possess such a mutation, and you'd lived to be 200, while looking 30, do you think you'd tell anyone? Throughout most of history, you'd have been killed as a demon / sorcerer / whatever. More recently, you'd be stuck in a lab and studied. The incentives for coming forward are poor, the incentives for keeping quiet are high.
You can probably think of more reasons, if you try.
sudo mod me up