On Tuesday, December 2, 2003, at 11:32  PM, Todd Moody wrote:
> That's one issue.  The other is whether survival into old age is itself
> something for which our species has little evolutionary preparation.
> If
> that is so (I'm not convinced of it, but I don't think it has been
> refuted either) then we have to consider the possibility that the
> premise that a "natural" diet is the best path to longevity is just
> wrong.  Longevity may be as unnatural as corn.  Humans may be optimized
> for relatively short but vigorous lives.
>

Snowflake the albino gorilla died the other day at the age of 37.
According to the paper that is twice the natural life span. Gorillas
are pretty smart, and 37 is very old by normal animal standards. Among
mammals at least, longevity seems tied pretty closely to intelligence,
(and to body size). So the longest living warm blooded animals are
humans, elephants, parrots, great apes, and not surprisingly these are
also the most intelligent animals. Sorry I don't know where whales and
dolphins fit, but I suspect they are also long lived.

Evolutionary theory supports the idea that we are a naturally long
lived species. Basically, if you have a trait it is because you are
adapted for it. We wouldn't have all these adaptations to longevity if
they were not useful in some way. Obviously some of our ancestors must
have lived to 70 or 80, and been useful to their offspring, or we would
not still have this trait.