Amadeus, what you are saying here is true but I think that evolutionary
terms it applies more to the future of humanity than to its present or past.
I think you are ignoring the fact that our current DNA is the product of
billions of years of evolution... it did not suddenly come into existence at
the beginning of the paleolithic. The changes to our genetic code in the
last 40 thousand years are probably almost negligent when viewed in terms of
the greater scheme of evolution.

The best evidence that mother nature begins to care less for us after middle
age is that we begin to fall apart physically.  If natural selection did not
in actuality disfavor old humans vs young humans then we would not lose our
vision and our teeth as we grow old.

-gts


----- Original Message -----
From: "Amadeus Schmidt" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: [P-F] Optimal Health (and useful old-aged?)


> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000 17:08:39 -0500, gordon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >However eventually older people become the competitors of young people
for
> >food and other resources and it is in the interest of our genes that the
> >young people win the battle. Mother nature has relatively little interest
> in
> >creating or supporting people beyond the years of child-rearing. In
general
> >this means we should put less faith in mother nature as we grow older.
>
> Older people people needn't be competitors - as some short-sighted
> economical computations may suggest.
> In humans, the situation is a little different than with mantis
> (thanks god especially for men).
> Human childs have the longest period of childhood than any other child.
> Human babies are *extremely* dependent on help and have a very long period
> befor they can have their own babies.
>
> I think this is, because what makes up a human is not only determined
> by genes (like with animals like mantis). Very important became the
> information capacity of the brain. Even a young gatherer or hunter
> needs a long time of education *how to* do things.
> Which ones of thousands of plants is edible in which part at which time
> with which kind of preparation. This is a very important addition to the
> mor simple and slow changing information in the genes.
> Especially in a rapid changing envoronment.
> Our brain is very big for a animal.
>
> Here comes what makes long-living humans *useful*, even after loosing
> fertility.
> 1.Gandparents help rearing the helpless grandchilds - for the first years.
> 2.The grandparent "database": - it may take a long life to aquire
knowledge
> about gathering (hunting skills may come a little quicker).
>
> Today as computer databases take over more of the information processing,
> of course grandparents knowledge are less interesting in many areas.
>
> The human genom makes up about 2 gigabytes of storage.
> The brain hmm was it 15 giga-cells? With which capacity in bytes?
> Brain's capabilities may outperform the genetic apparatus in
> processing capacity (and of course speed).
>
> Fortunately for the 40's above (I'm 40) evolution had an "interest"
> to keep some old aged.
>
> Alexs wrote:
> >-I mentioned to my late granny -- in my youthful naivete -- that old
> >people performed a vital function in passing on culture, wisdom
> >bla bla et cetera . She cited examples of burdensome, silly or
> >destructive oldsters who were better off not influencing younger
> >generations or being a drain on family resources. Down in flames!
> >Unlike fine wine, older in humans is not necessarily better or valuable.
>
> Of course there may be burdensome or silly old aged.
> That doesn't mean that old-aged may be or may *have* been
> essential to humanities developement...
>
> regards
>
> Amadeus
>