From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Jun 07 2003 - 11:09:16 MDT
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
Ok -- I think we are mostly in agreement. One minor point.
> > There is no "program for aging" -- there is a "program which fails to
> > keep you young indefinitely". It is a subtle but significant
> > difference.
>
> There is a program which not only fails to keep you young indefinitely,
> but which contains design dependencies upon the failures.
I believe you are now getting into the area of "antagonistic
pleiotropy". While there may be a case for this in lesser
organisms, the case in mammals is far from a "done deal".
*But*, I will grant that there are "design dependencies" that bias
things in ways that may be counter-productive. The classic
example I would cite is an essential requirement for iron and
copper in certain molecules/enzymes (e.g. hemoglobin and CuZnSOD) --
at the same time Fe & Cu in various oxidation states can damage DNA.
So they have to be managed very carefully and that management is
unlikely to be perfect at all times. [If one plays with fire one
may well get burnt.]
Now, if by "design dependencies upon the failures" you mean that
telomere shortening is essential for preventing cancer, you are
probably correct. There are two ways around this (a) better DNA
repair so the telomeres are not required for a cell division counting
(and therefore an approximation of accumulated DNA damage) mechanism;
or (b) better stem cell replacement for cells which decide apoptosis
is the best alternative (presumably in part due to telomere shortening).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 11:20:11 MDT