Can science be used to validate collectivism?

[polyphonic]

I remember reading an article somewhere that said our genes have a fuse built in to them. After the fuse runs out the gene does not replicate properly and so new cells are imperfect. This is why ageing happens. Without these "fuses" we would live much longer than we currently do as all cells would replicate near perfectly.

The article went on to say that the reason that we are in effect programmed to die is because of collective survival value. Eg. if we lived forever things would not change quickly which would have a negaitve effect on the species - imagine if a corrupt ruler lived forever.

This disturbs me. If this were true, then collectivism would be in a sense a part of each and every one of us. It would be something that we could never escape from. Our bodies have the ability to live as long as we keep them alive, yet they purposefully replicate cells badly and die. All for the good of the species.

Is anyone with more knowledge of science than me able to discredit the above? I hope so. Looking forward to your replies.

[Travis P.]

I remember reading an article somewhere that said our genes have a fuse built in to them. After the fuse runs out the gene does not replicate properly and so new cells are imperfect. This is why ageing happens. Without these "fuses" we would live much longer than we currently do as all cells would replicate near perfectly.

The article went on to say that the reason that we are in effect programmed to die is because of collective survival value. Eg. if we lived forever things would not change quickly which would have a negaitve effect on the species - imagine if a corrupt ruler lived forever.

This disturbs me. If this were true, then collectivism would be in a sense a part of each and every one of us. It would be something that we could never escape from. Our bodies have the ability to live as long as we keep them alive, yet they purposefully replicate cells badly and die. All for the good of the species.

Is anyone with more knowledge of science than me able to discredit the above? I hope so. Looking forward to your replies.

The "fuses" in our genes are our telomeres. It is basically a section on the ends of our chromosomes that gets shortened in all of our normal cells each time they replicate, because of the way cells replicate, but not in stem cells or our germ line because they lengthen the telomeres and keep them long.

I can complete discredit that article. It takes one thing and draws an incorrect conclusion. I can not only guarantee to you that most scientists would not take what he said as fact, there is no logical reason to draw that. The person is trying to draw, using the theory of evolution, a why about why our telomeres shorten. When our telomeres get short enough, our cells are no longer able to replicate, and some studies suggest (although its not accepted as being the case yet) that genes may become misexpressed when telomeres are short, contributing to aging.

You should note that, to my knowledge, essentially every living thing after bacteria has the telomere "problem", with a few exceptions in the insect world. A company has extracted telomerase from some bacteria and sells it to help immortalize new cell lines (make cells that replicate forever in petri dishes so that researchers can study them outside of people). Telomeres were basically an essential consequence of the switch from circular to linear DNA.

You should ALSO note that there is no agreement about why aging happens yet. Anyone who tells you telomeres are definitely why aging happens is lying. Furthermore, telomeres act to save us from cancer. One of the hallmarks of cancer is that cancer cells divide out of the control of our body. If a cell starts to replicate out of control because it has gained some of the genetic mutations that cause cancer, then the telomeres will shorten and the cell will stop dividing at some point. However, eventually an additional mutation occurs, allowing telomeres to regenerate and the cells to proliferate (this is simplified). Without telomeres, we would get cancer much much quicker. High levels of telomerase activity are observed in over 90% of human cancer cells. Telomeres are an additional checkpoint for cancer to leap over. Telomere inhibition is something actively being studied by the pharmaceuticals in an attempt to stop cancer.

There's also no evidence that, in humans, simply allowing our cells to replicate indefinitely would make us live forever, even absent the cancer we would get much sooner. Old age is also believed to be a result of a number of other factors, including simple long term genetic damage (the same that causes cancer).

The collective survival value aspect of the article's theory doesn't make much logical sense. Also, most evolutionists require there to be an individual survival value in something we have (ie. protection from cancer and thereby allowing us to live longer than we would otherwise) and not a sole collective survival value. I haven't studied evolution in most contexts for a while, except in the area of sex determination (why sexual reproduction is advantageous to asexual reproduction). For something like telomeres, that are present in almost all multicellular organisms, there are personal advantages to not allowing your cells to divide forever.

Nature, so far, has not found a way to allow multicellular organisms to live indefinitely (unlike bacteria which can be essentially immortal given the right conditions). That's up to us.

Note that its true, if we lived forever, our genes would not change and evolution would not occur. Would this have a "negative effect on the species"? Only out of context. What makes us, as humans, unique is our ability to reason. Of all animals, we are the only ones who have the ability to actively change our own genes and actually do what not only random genetic changes over time can't do, but can do it quicker and without bad genetic changes resulting in the loss of individuals. Would it be bad for people if Edison was still alive today? Of course not.

The anology used in the article (corrupt ruler), which I have not read but am reading your interpretation, is incorrect, the only way he could justify the living/dying as a "collective" evolutionary is via evolution. Living forever would essentially end the process of natural evolution. This is certainly true, and combined with the individual survival value of preventing uncontrolled cellular proliferation, is probably accurate. If monkeys (or our common ancestor with monkeys) could live forever, and also didn't procreate as much as a result, humans would have never been around. Monkeys themselves might be extinct because there would be no genetic changes to protect them from new conditions, and although they would be procreating (changing the genetic pool), the amount of this would be much less because of limiting living space. Telomeres do ensure that we don't live forever. But we wouldn't live forever without these fuses anyways. Telomeres allow us to live longer, by saving us from cancer. Telomeres were also necessary in the switch from circular DNA to linear DNA, in which a new problem was created: DNA Ends.

Dipteran insects don't have these fuses, don't have telomere repeats (they use retrotransposition instead), but they don't live forever either.

This doesn't make COLLECTIVISM a part of our nature, I don't see how that conclusion is drawn.

The different theories of aging include: Mutation Accumulation Theory, Disposable Soma Theory, Antagonistic Pleiotropy Theory. Evolution really only requires that we live to reproductive age. I think that changes a bit once individuals in a species are capable of reason. Be careful what conclusions you draw from evolutionary theory. Ask what does it mean "the good of the species" in the context of evolution? It means the species is more likely to be around in the future. Even if it were true that the sole reason we age is to ensure the survival of the species (not only not proven and not likely to be the sole reason, but there are also molecular limitations), this would not imply collectivism is a part of us. It would mean that the random genetic changes that occur caused animals to live longer and shorter. The animals that survived until their ability to reproduce and not much longer after, were more likely to have successful offspring. The reproductive age varied based on how competitive the environment was. What does this mean for you, in how you should act and live? Very, very little.

Obviously we have aspects in us, derived from our ancestors, which have a species survival value. Interestingly enough, our ability to reason and have free will has enabled us to have more survival fitness than many previous animals.

I hope that helps, I wrote it quickly upon waking up, and it's not well organized. You can always e-mail me with more specific questions.

[KevinD]

I've heard a number of allegedly "scientific" proofs that altruism and collectivism are a part of our nature. All of them, in my opinion, are total bunk. Advanced scientific knowledge is not necessary to see this.

You write: "If we lived forever things would not change quickly." Even if the cells of the body could replicate themselves indefinitely, that would not mean that we would "live forever." We'd still have to work to maintain our existence, and we could still die by any number of means; the constant alternative of life or death would still confront us.

But let's grant that a human's life span can be extended by many years — as it has been, at least in the industrial world, and continues to be. How does a shorter life span equal more progress? Because of the higher turnover rate? Certainly as far as good people are concerned, I could imagine nothing but a benefit to humanity by keeping them around for as long as possible. As for the "corrupt ruler" in your example; it makes no difference when a dictator dies, if he is succeeded by an equally corrupt individual under the same corrupt political system. (In any event, most dictators are ousted by decidedly unnatural causes.)

Even if our genes or cells do contain some kind of self-destruct mechanism, it's a pretty far leap to conclude that humans are "built" for collectivism. If the biological part of the thesis is true, then it may help to explain why we live for about 80-90 years. If it isn't . . . well, we still live for about 80-90 years. Has a maximum life span been "set" — somehow, by nature or by God — "for the good of the species?" It just doesn't make any sense.

There are a great many arguments along the lines of: A banana fits in the human hand perfectly; it can be peeled easily and provides excellent nourishment for the body. Obviously, the banana and the human were designed by God, along with everything else in the universe, so you'd better accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior or you're bound for Hell for all eternity. (Somehow, I suspect that the person advancing this argument did not arrive at his beliefs by studying bananas.)

For an analysis of the very real biological basis of individualism, I refer you to Miss Rand's essay "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness.

[Colonel Rebel]

one thing that original post made me think of was: how absurd is it when one tries to rationalize collectivism via cell division....

[Inspector]

Also, I have read that telomeres are an essential defense against cancer. People with longer telomeres are more likely to develop cancer because the cells have a weaker safety mechanism.