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