- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 419
As the original thread was closed, I'll revisit on my own.
It is reductionist (and circular) to state that nothing dies of old age, but only specific organ failure, when age may in fact be the cause of the organ failure. That would be the equivalent of listing 'heart stopped' as cause of death, whether the heart stoppage was precipitated by leprosy or ninja assault. The statement would be true, but lacking some significant details.
There are in fact 'expiration dates'; teeth wear down, eyes develop cataracts, joints destabilize or otherwise fail. On a deeper level, there is what's called the Hayflick number, a maximum number of cell divisions that are even potentially possible and this varies tremendously by species. If you want to be scientific about the question, the typical maximum lifespan calculation is the mean value of the longest lived 10% of a given species. At that point, metabolic collapse at either the cellular, organ, or system level is expected.
It is reductionist (and circular) to state that nothing dies of old age, but only specific organ failure, when age may in fact be the cause of the organ failure. That would be the equivalent of listing 'heart stopped' as cause of death, whether the heart stoppage was precipitated by leprosy or ninja assault. The statement would be true, but lacking some significant details.
There are in fact 'expiration dates'; teeth wear down, eyes develop cataracts, joints destabilize or otherwise fail. On a deeper level, there is what's called the Hayflick number, a maximum number of cell divisions that are even potentially possible and this varies tremendously by species. If you want to be scientific about the question, the typical maximum lifespan calculation is the mean value of the longest lived 10% of a given species. At that point, metabolic collapse at either the cellular, organ, or system level is expected.