mitteldorf

6 ms·

1.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
I agree - take a look at http://www.amnat.org/an/newpapers/SepMitteldorf.html http://mathforum.org/~josh/Mitteldorf&Martins_Programmed-Agi...
2.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
Marginal effect on INDIVIDUAL fitness, but a huge effect on THE FITNESS OF ECOSYSTEMS. Without aging, ecosystems would be unstable dynamic systems, and would not last more than a single generation. Without aging, everyone would die at onc
3.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
This way of thinking assumes that all life is evolved for maximum reproductive fitness. This is false. It is bedrock evolutionary biology, but it is also false. It turns out that the way evolution works is much more subtle than the postu
4.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
The tradeoff between reproduction and aging is sometimes present and sometimes absent. The successes are over-reported and the failures under-reported, so you might get the impression of "extremely well documented" with a cursory
5.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
The most important thing to keep in mind is that your own body is your best experimental lab, and that you should pay attention to what works FOR YOU and keep a diary. Other people's experience is good for giving you ideas of things t
6.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
The Selfish Gene was a phase in our understanding of evolution. The mainstream now agrees that evolution is a whole lot more complicated than that. It's still true that "group selection" is a dirty word to a majority of evol
7.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
There is no "natural selection" within an individual body, within an individual lifetime. Yes, there are some cells that continue to live and others that continue to die. But the cells are not competing, with the fittest winning
8.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
Tragedy of the Commons is exactly right. Yes, the genes spread through the gene pool, but then the population goes extinct very quickly because there's a huge population and nothing to eat. This is the most powerful form of group sele
9.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
Take a look at the works of Mikhail Blagosklonny. His view of aging and hormesis is just what you describe. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3249451/ (I'm not endorsing this view - I believe
10.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
Thank you for the correction. I was relying on my memory rather than looking up the chemistry. I regret that I'll have to remove the reference to the US atrocities in Vietnam, but I suppose I'll take that up another day...
11.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
Yes, it is group selection, and group selection has been badly maligned for almost 50 years now. But a large body of literature confirms group selection. See David Wilson's book, Unto Others. Group selection is especially effective in
12.
by mitteldorf 12y ago
Yes, thank you. Breast and thyroid cancer studies on Hiroshima survivors show HIGHER rates. This was a blunder on my part. I've removed the paragraph on Hiroshima.