an588{at}freenet.carleton.ca (Catherine Woodgold) wrote in news:cl1e3a$1vtf$1
{at}darwin.ediacara.org:

> 
> By the way:  physical processes which seem to be for
> the purpose of causing old people to die may actually
> be for preventing cancer.


But why not just prevent cancer? Galapagos tortoises do it for several 
hundreds of years, and sharks may do it for similar periods. I don't know 
what the equivalent of cancer is in plants but sequoias live  for a 
_really_ long time. Whales don't live quite as long as people but they live 
for that time with a whale of a lot (sorry) more cells, so presumable need 
more effective cancer avoidance mechanisms. 

 
> I think an argument can be made, similar to my menopause
> argument, that purposely dying off could evolve to prevent
> a drain on the community by disabled old individuals.
> However, I doubt this happens in humans:  the evolution
> of menopause seems to suggest that keeping old people
> around was an advantage.

And the community could instead decide that it was better to eat old 
disabled individuals than revere them. Apart from the question of 
menopause, the fact that most societies are willing to invest considerable 
resources in keeping alive old individuals argues in favor of your 
hypothesis that keeping old people around is a good idea. 

Yours,


Bill Morse
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/20/04 4:29:07 PM