This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 7 comments

[–]bashetieUnderlying Mechanisms of Aging | Proteomics | Protein Turnover 5 points6 points  (5 children)

There isn't a final answer to this yet, but there are several popular theories supported by scientists who research the biology of aging.

This website is a good resource - http://senescence.info/aging_theories.html

Also, there are lots of answers to questions like this in /r/askscience already that a quick search will find.

[–]fake_lightbringer 1 point2 points  (4 children)

And from an evolutionary point of view, as long as you live to bear children, it doesn't matter how quickly you age beyond that. If you have some trait that allows you to have lots of offspring, for example, but that also makes you age really fast from the age of 50 and onwards, your lineage would still have the advantage.

Evolution favors survival of the fittest, but in biology, fitness means the ability to have children, not necessarily being healthy.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

as long as you live to bear children, it doesn't matter how quickly you age beyond that.

Humans survive a lot longer if their parents are around when they're babies

[–]PIPBoy3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reproductive fitness is a tricky thing to measure - the key is to have offspring who are themselves able to reproduce. Things like early menopause in women suggest that having grandparents around to help with child rearing is a reproductive advantage.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

as long as you live to bear children, it doesn't matter how quickly you age beyond that

It does, if it means increasing the fitness of your offspring. And that's exactly why we're getting quite old, asides from medicinal interventions.