🚀 go-pugleaf

"Only at age 50 do they start moving out of the red and into the black."

"I resemble that remark" :-)

there's a 'hitch' in the hypothesis. life-spans are increasing dramatically,
as a function of experience, so the 'span', and the ratios inherent, cannot
be genetically-pre-determined [unless the evolutionary 'engineer'
'planned-ahead', with respect to what it knew, apriori, would be in
experience as centuries passed].

no?

it wasn't that long ago that our anscestors life-expectancy was half what it
is now.

no?

FWIW, my view [again] is that it's information-processing capacity, and
'husbanding' its use [which, of course, includes avoiding 'risks' such as
smoking], that determine longevity.

the only physical reason that death =has to= occur derives in the onset of
nervous-system-correlated inability to adapt.

if folks lived-on beyond that, all progress would grind to a halt.

this isn't a 'scary' thought... just Live, Joyously, while the capacity for
Life is in-there, taking such True-Wonder Stuff as Seriously as it is,
exploring all that's in-it, to the 'last-drop'.

then, let your Spirit go to Heaven.

works for me.

i'm 'tired'. what's here should be more than what's here, but there it is,
'small' as it is.

Yikes! i've 'lost' my ability to adapt. guess i'll have to 'die'.

"oh well."

k. p. collins

Ian Goddard wrote in message <3d335893.173130653@news.erols.com>...
>http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992547
>
>Human brain "paid off" by long life
>
>22:00 15 July 02
>Robin Orwant
>
>A theory portraying children as start-up companies and middle-aged
>adults as their investors has been proposed to explain why humans have
>such big brains and long life spans.
>
>Evolutionary biologists have puzzled for decades over why humans live
>twice as long as chimpanzees and gorillas and have brains three to
>four times larger than their closest living relatives.
>
>"We're thinking of the brain as an investment," says economist Arthur
>Robson, at the University of Western Ontario. Robson and
>anthropologist Hillard Kaplan, at the University of New Mexico,
>believe this investment is so substantial that it requires a longer
>human life span to give it the time to pay off.
>
>"The combination of issues that they raise is novel - a useful first
>step," says evolutionary biologist Michael Rose, at the University of
>California at Irvine. But he warns against putting too much confidence
>in a mathematical model: "If you're a good applied mathematician, you
>can come up with a model to give you any conclusion you want."
>
>Nonetheless, Rose is intrigued by the explanation of why human
>children are so unproductive for so long. "This is the best paper on
>the evolution of teenagers I've ever read," he says.
>
>Enormous debt
>
>The inspiration for Robson and Kaplan's theory came from the
>observation that children in modern day hunter-gatherer societies
>consume more calories than they produce, accumulating an enormous debt
>that peaks at age 20.
>
>As active young adults, they produce more than they consume, but it
>takes decades to pay off their childhood debt. Only at age 50 do they
>start moving out of the red and into the black. They then begin to
>make a net contribution of resources to their society, offsetting the
>debt of the children in the next generation.
>
>The researchers noticed the parallels between the energy flows in
>these societies and cash flows in start-up companies, and applied an
>economic model to human evolution. They treated physical and mental
>capacities as "embodied capital", with the brain representing a
>special form of capital that increases in value over time.
>
>Predator protection
>
>According to the model, the brain requires such an enormous investment
>of energy during childhood that human ancestors must have evolved long
>life spans to make that initial investment worthwhile.
>
>Robson and Kaplan believe these early humans must have lived in an
>environment where food gathering was complicated, favouring the
>development of big brains. They also suspect that the environment
>reduced the risk of premature death by affording some protection from
>predators.
>
>The model therefore assumes that the environment was the key factor
>shaping human evolution. But, Rose argues, this leaves out the
>sophisticated social interactions that must have also contributed to
>development.
>
>Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
>(DOI: 10.1073/pnas.152502899)
>
>22:00 15 July 02
>
>
>
>  Ian Goddard : http://users.erols.com/igoddard
>
>  "To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals." Benjamin Franklin
>
>  From Fat to Thin: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/me-cr.htm
>
>  Caloric Restriction: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/cr.htm
>
>

Dwight: As to the theory no comment. As to Mr. Collins comment, I say,
"life-expectancy at birth perhaps. But when I look at my family tree
and
the length of recorded life spans of those who managed to procreate, I
see spans
that often reached 60, 70 and even 80. And one maternal line that
repeatedly reached the century mark even in the 1800's. Even 100 years
ago, I suspect one in 20 live births didn't get past the three month
mark. Perhaps my ancestors were not your ancestors;-)"



"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message n
> 
> it wasn't that long ago that our anscestors life-expectancy was half what it
> is now.
> 
> no?
>

"Dwight Hooper" <dh@bentonrea.com> wrote in message
news:45159f7d.0207152219.4d5fa4b3@posting.google.com...
> Dwight: As to the theory no comment. As to Mr. Collins comment, I say,
> "life-expectancy at birth perhaps. But when I look at my family tree
> and
> the length of recorded life spans of those who managed to procreate, I
> see spans
> that often reached 60, 70 and even 80. And one maternal line that
> repeatedly reached the century mark even in the 1800's. Even 100 years
> ago, I suspect one in 20 live births didn't get past the three month
> mark. Perhaps my ancestors were not your ancestors;-)"
>
>
>
> "Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message n
> >
> > it wasn't that long ago that our anscestors life-expectancy was half
what it
> > is now.
> >
> > no?
> >

And if the Holy Bible's timeframes are accurate, and if we understand them
correctly, then life expectancies then were much longer than they are today.

Also, countries like Japan and Australia, who spend half as much as a
percent of GDP for "health care", have 4 year longer life expectancies than
we do.

There's a lot of hot air surrounding this claim about our life expectancies
increasing, and it seems to be designed to conceal the fact that they're
not, or maybe even that they're getting shorter.

John Knight

> life-spans are increasing dramatically,
> as a function of experience, 

well really, the longer you live the more you see.  truly astounding. 

> the only physical reason that death =has to= occur derives in the onset of
> nervous-system-correlated inability to adapt.

Wat does this actually mean?  what do you mean by adapt? adapt to
what?  who/what is adapting?

>
Don't you think it is more likely that as soon as a organisms had
evolved enough to be able to reproduce then no further progress was
made in longevity?  Indeed it would be detrimental if people/animals
did live perpetually, and such organisms may well have been selected
out.

The reason we live longer than our ancestors is that the general
standard of health and nutrition has increased and we now maximise the
potential of our bodies.

i should've specifified that the "not long ago" to which i was referring was
circa the "Iceman" discovered in Europe when the ice that'd encased him
finally melted. (sorry, that's how i remember 'the date' :-)

back then.

BTW, my paternal Grandmother lived to 100. My Father and I had set the same
goal for him, but then I was jailed, and he lost his Life at 93.

ken

Dwight Hooper wrote in message
<45159f7d.0207152219.4d5fa4b3@posting.google.com>...
>Dwight: As to the theory no comment. As to Mr. Collins comment, I say,
>"life-expectancy at birth perhaps. But when I look at my family tree
>and
>the length of recorded life spans of those who managed to procreate, I
>see spans
>that often reached 60, 70 and even 80. And one maternal line that
>repeatedly reached the century mark even in the 1800's. Even 100 years
>ago, I suspect one in 20 live births didn't get past the three month
>mark. Perhaps my ancestors were not your ancestors;-)"
>
>
>
>"Kenneth Collins" <k.p.collins@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message n
>>
>> it wasn't that long ago that our anscestors life-expectancy was half what
it
>> is now.
>>
>> no?
>>

i stand on what i posted.

k. p. collins

mat wrote in message <43525ce3.0207160339.5495bfe5@posting.google.com>...
>> life-spans are increasing dramatically,
>> as a function of experience,
>
>well really, the longer you live the more you see.  truly astounding.
>
>> the only physical reason that death =has to= occur derives in the onset
of
>> nervous-system-correlated inability to adapt.
>
>Wat does this actually mean?  what do you mean by adapt? adapt to
>what?  who/what is adapting?
>
>>
>Don't you think it is more likely that as soon as a organisms had
>evolved enough to be able to reproduce then no further progress was
>made in longevity?  Indeed it would be detrimental if people/animals
>did live perpetually, and such organisms may well have been selected
>out.
>
>The reason we live longer than our ancestors is that the general
>standard of health and nutrition has increased and we now maximise the
>potential of our bodies.

guess i should explain.

it's impractical to reiterate stuff that's been reiterated 'ad infinitum' in
the past.

i expect that at least some of the correlated discussions are archived on
the net, and encourage folks to give them a look.

hopefully, in the future, there'll be a 'compilation' opportunity.

the need is to move-on in the work, rather than entering 'endless-loops' of
reiteration.

before i 'lose my ability to adapt' :-)

k. p. collins

Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
>i stand on what i posted.
>
>k. p. collins