Further notes about the morphostasis concept – split files

(36) Aging

Science daily has just published a bit on the immune system and aging . It gave the illusion that we could alter the intrinsic longevity limit. This prompted me to add this bit. We are (almost certainly) genetically programmed to die in a (roughly) bell shaped normal distribution (perhaps with a tail) around 92 for males and 95 for females. There are a lot of epigenetic things that we can do to improve our longevity (as attested by modern survival rates). However, short of substantial alterations to our genetic code, all we can do is to drag out our longevity rectangle to get ever closer to a square shape before it will drop off vertically around this 92–95 year limit. Those that survive to 110 (or more) are probably (genetically) many standard deviations out along the normal distribution around this 92–95 limit. The figure here illustrates this. It shows the improving life expectancy distributions from past centuries (lower left curve) towards our current expectation and beyond (upper right curve). Better birth management, child care, immunisation, diet, avoidance of smoking, low alcohol intake, lots of exercise, limited calorific intake, loads of live plant food, good housing conditions, antibiotics (given sparingly and in real need), medicines, surgery, seat belts, cocooned cars vs open motorbikes, speed limits, avoiding fighting/war/trauma, health and safety at work (and etc) will all help to drag the life expectancy curves out towards the top right hand corner. But, once you are into your early to mid 90s, whatever you do, your genes are going to get the better of you and any slight pathogenic stimulus is going to tip you across your limit. This is well illustrated by vO2 max (cardiovascular fitness) assessments. They can be dragged out in the same "fill up the oblong" fashion with appropriate vigorous exercise. However, come the mid/late 80s, whatever you do, your vO2 max will start to fall precipitously.