Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

You misspelled the title of the page. It should be "Aging". The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dunno 'bout the US, but over this side the pond ageing is more common SusanG  ContribsTalk 19:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
And Merriam Webster agrees SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
You silly Brits, apeing the American language. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't say MW "agrees", they list the correct spelling, "aging", first... although their truncateing of the entry leaves one to wonder. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


Ok, it's a bit short now, but I think this article has great potential. To begin with, someone could make references to all kinds of pseudosciences & charlatans that have in the past (and present?) peddled "elixirs of life", "fountain of youths", "magnetic field cell rejuvenation" etc. Then there are the modern subjects, like the cosmetic industry claims, anti-oxidants etc. And finally from a rationalistic, and quite atheist viewpoint I always found it pretty dismal, that, there's probably more funding for "defence" and "terrorism" measures than anti-senescence research. Despite aging killing a whole lot more people. Sen (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ageing kills people at the end of their natural life, by definition. Terrorism doesn't. As for the article, if you don't intend to expand it yourself, the place to suggest new articles is the to do list rather than leaving a one-line stub lying around. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that the use of the word "natural" is non-sensial. Cancer is natural, Aids is natural, this doesn't mean they aren't a problem, or worth being treated as a problem. Further more, I would argue that even classifing terrorists as not being natural, is logically meaningless and another example of that "human exceptionalism" meme. Humans are parts of nature, therefore everything they do is by default natural. That includes terrorists as well as all of human technology. So dieing from a terrorist attack in an equally natural end of life as dieing from a pre-existing genetic code. Finally, if "natural" is supposed to mean some kind of "average" without "intervention" (despite, as explained, any form of intervention being natural as well), I would like to note that the average life expectancy in Classical Greece was 28. Sen (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As (possibly) the ageingest person here, I like this, Leave it where it is and let Sen amplify it. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It's actually quite funny right now, and it's good placeholder while we write something a bit more substantial. Sen, are you working on this, or shall I start chucking a few things together? --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to expand it, but I am not actually working on something specific. Feel free to add anything you want. Sen (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I'll do a bit of reading-up on the causes of ageing, and some of the woo associated with avoiding it. Probably won't be tonight though - more like Sunday. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've added some basic background on aging. I think it'd benefit from having some of the aging-related woo stuff added to it. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 13:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Something I've never seen addressed ...[edit]

... by the gODbotherers is: at what stage of ageing is the existence in the afterlife? Someone reborn as a dementia suffering old person would be at a disadvantage when compared to a child killed at a young age with all faculties in place. Can we pick? I'd be 28. SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still going with Hell as the best option. Heaven sounds like it'll be full of irredeemable bastards who have to spend every waking hour reminding God of how rather smashing he is. I don't like neurotic and needy landlords. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I believe mainstream Christianity assumes the soul manifests as the young adult Hamster (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


The page is short, useless, and if it grows, it will probably become a worse article.

So is your face
Don't delete it. Just move it to Funspace. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I like it. I think it's on mission because it's a snarky rebuke of anti-aging woo in 20 words or less. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Methinks Yutsi trolleth. SusanG  ContribsTalk 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Teh Beeb[edit]

Tuesday 9 Mar '10 on BBC R4 SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Disposable soma theory[edit]

I have never and will probably never be convinced by telomere theories concerning ageing. The main reason is that it doesn't explain why there are so many differences between life expectancies for many species. Some animal species don't seem to have any ageing process, some others age very fast. However, they all have cellular mechanism that are basically the same.

I very much prefer evolutionnary theories such as the "disposable soma theory". Basically it states that longevity might very well not be a selection criteria, and therefore natural selection is incapable of providing it.

Let me try to reformulate it for human beeings in particular :

Human beings used to have a quite dangerous life : they hunt wild huge animals, they travel a lot (and thus are exposed to many germs), the birth process is quite dangerous for the female, and so on... Therefore, in pre-hitoric times, even an non-ageing human being would probably die before he turns 50. Therefore, longevity can not be considered as a selective criterium. People would just have no opportunity to "use" it to have a bigger offspring. That's why humans age. Their organisms are disposable somatic enveloppes for their germinal cells. --Grondilu (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

--Grondilu (talk) 01:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)