Thank you very much for telling me the amazing story of Dorothy Day. I think every kind word and action makes a positive difference.

Some organisms are biologically immortal, e.g. planarian flatworms, immortal jellyfish, hydra, etc. If we could genetically engineer all living things to be biologically immortal and place them in spaceships to visit other star systems, thus spreading life across the universe, lives could be saved forever. — Truth Seeker

I think that immortality is wrong, death is of course horrible but it is also a part of life. Personally it is what I believe gives meaning to our lives.
As for religious differences and persecution obviously have no objections, but I can't think of an effective way to stop it.

How would I get all the people to unite and work together to achieve the 14 worldwide objectives? — Truth Seeker

I don't have a terribly bright idea of how to go about this, because getting every person's support is damn near impossible. However if you stand firm to your principles and never give in, I think those that support the same things you do will follow.

I think that immortality is wrong, death is of course horrible but it is also a part of life. Personally it is what I believe gives meaning to our lives. — Red Sky

I am sorry I don't understand - please explain how death gives meaning to our lives.

getting every person's support is damn near impossible. — Red Sky

I agree. I wish there was an easy way to unite everyone.

Strive to be humble, and make small positive contributions to the lives of the people around you. That's already hard enough for most.

Overly lofty goals makes people lose touch with reality, inflate their ego and promote inaction rather than action, because in regards to the world's problems one is powerless and without responsibility anyway.

please explain how death gives meaning to our lives. — Truth Seeker

Logically thinking things that are rarer (or in this case are around for less time) are more valuable. It is just very hard to put a value on life in the first place. For me it has more to do with the inspiration of life, why do anything and why not do anything when you live forever. You can always do it later and literally push it off for eternity.
It might be easier to specifically think of it in terms of time. When you have an infinite amount of time value loses itself because you can do everything. However when time is on a clock you can really only choose the things that are more precious. Would you waste a normal human life without reaching your dream?
Additionally immortality would be perfection, it would absolutely stop evolution. This is of less concern, because the method to gain immortality would override any imperfection in my mind. However the original intention with that is if humans as we are now gain immortality. Emotionally, I think it is impossible for humans to become immortal. The amount of time that passes would make anyone an emotionless robot. (However, I have not experienced immortality, so I wouldn't know =) A body would still be alive, but the mind and emotions of the person would be all but ruined.

please explain how death gives meaning to our lives.
— Truth Seeker

Logically thinking things that are rarer (or in this case are around for less time) are more valuable. It is just very hard to put a value on life in the first place. For me it has more to do with the inspiration of life, why do anything and why not do anything when you live forever. You can always do it later and literally push it off for eternity.
It might be easier to specifically think of it in terms of time. When you have an infinite amount of time value loses itself because you can do everything. However when time is on a clock you can really only choose the things that are more precious. Would you waste a normal human life without reaching your dream?
Additionally immortality would be perfection, it would absolutely stop evolution. This is of less concern, because the method to gain immortality would override any imperfection in my mind. However the original intention with that is if humans as we are now gain immortality. Emotionally, I think it is impossible for humans to become immortal. The amount of time that passes would make anyone an emotionless robot. (However, I have not experienced immortality, so I wouldn't know =) A body would still be alive, but the mind and emotions of the person would be all but ruined. — Red Sky

Thank you for explaining your reasoning. I certainly wouldn't impose immortality on anyone who didn't want it. I want to be immortal because it would let me have an infinite amount of time to have an infinite amount of experiences. I posted a flash-fiction I wrote: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15765/the-choice You may enjoy reading it.

I am not convinced that having an infinite amount of time would cause me to procrastinate indefinitely on everything I want to do.

I am not convinced that immortality would be perfection. There are already biologically immortal organisms that can live forever if not killed. They are not perfect. Nor is perfection required to be immortal.

I am not convinced that being immortal would make me or anyone else emotionless. I see no reason for emotions to vanish given how emotions are produced by our brains.

I will check out your flash-fiction, thanks.

I am not convinced that having an infinite amount of time would cause me to procrastinate indefinitely on everything I want to do. — Truth Seeker

I would disagree, sometimes it is just one slip up or letting something slide just once that changes your entire being. While it is possible to not give in a single time, it is very unlikely even more so over the long time of immortality. That is not to say that once you fall into Procrastination you cannot come out. However the main problem is if immortality is wide spread,if there is no stop in reproduction there could be huge amounts of people (billions, trillions, and even more) who are procrastinating.
Not to mention that I think everybody would be a near carbon copy of each other. If you think about life as a funnel, everybody would end up at the same place after long enough time. (Their experiences would barely be different from each other)
For you personally, procrastination might be a different problem. You yourself state that immortality wouldn't make you procrastinate on the things you 'want' to do. What about the things you don't want to do. I think it would take a very special person to enjoy every part of life. Otherwise in your case, you would ignore the things you don't want to do in favor for the things you do want to do. (Which might not be a problem, but I would consider it so.)

I will check out your flash-fiction, thanks.
I am not convinced that having an infinite amount of time would cause me to procrastinate indefinitely on everything I want to do.
— Truth Seeker
I would disagree, sometimes it is just one slip up or letting something slide just once that changes your entire being. While it is possible to not give in a single time, it is very unlikely even more so over the long time of immortality. That is not to say that once you fall into Procrastination you cannot come out. However the main problem is if immortality is wide spread,if there is no stop in reproduction there could be huge amounts of people (billions, trillions, and even more) who are procrastinating.
Not to mention that I think everybody would be a near carbon copy of each other. If you think about life as a funnel, everybody would end up at the same place after long enough time. (Their experiences would barely be different from each other)
For you personally, procrastination might be a different problem. You yourself state that immortality wouldn't make you procrastinate on the things you 'want' to do. What about the things you don't want to do. I think it would take a very special person to enjoy every part of life. Otherwise in your case, you would ignore the things you don't want to do in favor for the things you do want to do. (Which might not be a problem, but I would consider it so.) — Red Sky

Please see this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16045/understanding-human-behaviour for more details about the Genes, Environments, Nutrients, and Experiences Causal Self Model.

There are many biologically immortal organisms already - they are not all identical in terms of genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. Every sentient biological organism has a unique GENE Profile. Our choices occur according to our unique GENE Profiles. The closer two organisms are in terms of their GENE Profiles, the more similar are the choices they make. The biologically immortal organisms that currently exist get on with their tasks as per their GENE Profiles. They are not stuck due to procrastination.

Life is not a funnel. It's more like a tree. There is an unbroken line of living cells that connects each and every organism currently alive to the first living cell - LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). I am made of living cells. I began as a zygote. My zygote came into existence when a sperm fused with an egg. The sperm and the egg were both living cells and were created by other living cells. You can keep going back like this through all of my ancestors, who were all made of living cells.

All multicellular organisms, including humans, are composed of living cells that perform various specialised functions.

A zygote is the first single-cell stage of a new individual formed by the fusion of a sperm and an egg. It is a living cell that undergoes division and differentiation to form your entire body.
Both sperm and egg (gametes) are living, specialised reproductive cells. They are produced by germline cells, which are themselves living cells within the reproductive organs of your parents.
Your parents’ germ cells originated from their own zygotes, which came from their parents’ gametes — and so on. Every gamete and somatic cell arises through the division of a preexisting cell, tracing back continuously.

This unbroken line of living cells — forming a continuous cellular lineage — goes back through all of your ancestors, human and pre-human. Each generation passes on living cells to the next.
All currently living organisms — humans, plants, fungi, bacteria — trace their cellular lineage back to a Last Universal Common Ancestor (LUCA), a single-celled organism thought to have lived around 3.5 to 4 billion years ago.

This means there is an unbroken chain of cell divisions from LUCA to every living cell today, including yours, mine, and everyone else's. We are all connected to LUCA and each other. We are one.

Our choices occur according to our unique GENE Profiles. The closer two organisms are in terms of their GENE Profiles, the more similar are the choices they make. — Truth Seeker

I think you are putting to much emphasis on genes, (I have read your other current thread).
I think that experiences play more of a role in a person than genes. I see genes as more of a foundation, they decide more early factors which then affect later factors.
An example for this, think of two people across the world from each other. Both have lived a pretty ordinary life, they are salary men, an average worker. While they have different genes their experience is not much different. If you don't know the people you wouldn't see them as anything different. While there would obviously be small changes in culture and the like, there genes play a smaller role than their experiences in life. Now compare them to a soldier, or more precisely a veteran. The veteran has gone through many life and death battles. He would obviously be incomparable to a soldiers. Is the difference between them their genes, or experience?
(Just realized I like to use the word 'obviously' a lot)

GENE Profile is short for Genes, Environments, Nutrients, and Experiences Profile. I used the initial letters to create the acronym GENE. All four categories of the variables are important. The closer two organisms are in terms of their GENE Profiles, the more similar their choices are. If you took two genetically identical twins and raised one to be a malnourished, illiterate beggar with no eyes in India by removing his eyes and raised the other to be a Navy SEAL in the USA, their GENE Profiles would be hugely different because while they started out as zygotes with identical genes, they had very different environments, nutrients and experiences.

If you took two identical twins and raised one to be a goat herder in Kenya and raised another to be a Navy SEAL in the USA, their GENE Profiles would be hugely different because while they started out as zygotes with identical genes, they had very different environments, nutrients and experiences. — Truth Seeker

Yes, but how does that connect to our original topic. You are basically agreeing with me that the Gene part in GENE is less important than the other parts.
The original topic was about immortality, if Genes are the least important out of GENE then what about immortals. How would their bodies deal with nutrients? Would they all not choose a similar environment or environments to live in? Would they all not have experiences so similar to each other that they aren't different.
When considering immortality, you have to consider everything. Even the nearly impossible.
When a monkey jumps on a type writer for eternity he will eventually write books more beautiful than any human could ever write.

You are basically agreeing with me that the Gene part in GENE is less important than the other parts.
The original topic was about immortality, if Genes are the least important out of GENE then what about immortals. How would their bodies deal with nutrients? Would they all not choose a similar environment or environments to live in? Would they all not have experiences so similar to each other that they aren't different. — Red Sky

No, all four categories of variables - genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences are essential. If you remove one, the others will be unable to create a living and sentient biological organism. If you removed my genes and replaced them with the genes of a bacteria, I would never be able to post anything on this forum. I would not even be sentient. Obviously, a bacteria obtains nutrients very differently from a human. Bacteria can survive in environments where humans can't. The organisms that are currently biologically immortal would never be able to type anything because they don't have the kind of brain and hands you need to be able to type words.

No, all four categories of variables - genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences are essential. — Truth Seeker

To what end?
I am not saying that it is not important at all, but only minimally so. In normal human life I would put a much greater emphasis on it, however if we were to talk about becoming immortal I think it would play a much less vital role.

To what end?
I am not saying that it is not important at all, but only minimally so. In normal human life I would put a much greater emphasis on it, however if we were to talk about becoming immortal I think it would play a much less vital role. — Red Sky

All four categories of variables i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences are essential for the construction of a sentient biological organism such as a human or a dog or a cow.

There are already many biologically immortal organisms. Their genes, environments, nutrients and experiences make them so. Why would it play a much less vital role?

Why would it play a much less vital role? — Truth Seeker

I am not talking about a role in their life, but more of their personality.
My original intent was that because of immortality many people would experience extremely similar or even exactly similar experiences. This would cause their personalities and some views to be exactly the same.
Genes are important to their life, but immortality is much to long that experiences become more important to personality than genes.

I am not talking about a role in their life, but more of their personality.
My original intent was that because of immortality many people would experience extremely similar or even exactly similar experiences. This would cause their personalities and some views to be exactly the same.
Genes are important to their life, but immortality is much to long that experiences become more important to personality than genes. — Red Sky

No human is currently immortal. So, I don't have any way to test how being immortal would affect a human. I have already tested how being immortal affects planarian flatworms. They thrive unless I kill them by denaturing their cells by heating them to 300 degrees Celsius. Since they can't talk using English, I couldn't ask them questions about their personality.

No human is currently immortal. So, I don't have any way to test how being immortal would affect a human. I have already tested how being immortal affects planarian flatworms. They thrive unless I kill them by denaturing their cells by heating them to 300 degrees Celsius. Since they can't talk using English, I couldn't ask them questions about their personality. — Truth Seeker

That's actually kind of cool.
How exactly do they thrive?
And testing the personality would be impossible.

How exactly do they thrive? — Red Sky

They survive and reproduce in situations humans can't e.g. having their head chopped off. That's how they thrive. I would love to be able to grow my head back after it is chopped off. I really admire planarian flatworms.

I really admire planarian flatworms. — Truth Seeker

Is their ability to regrow their heads the only reason you admire them?

Is their ability to regrow their heads the only reason you admire them? — Red Sky

No. Planarian flatworms are truly extraordinary organisms with several remarkable biological features that have fascinated scientists for decades. Here are their most impressive characteristics:

### **1. Regeneration Superpowers**

Planarians are famous for their **astonishing regenerative abilities**:

* They can **regrow an entire body** from just a **tiny fragment** - as little as 1/279th of the original worm.
* If cut in half, each half can regenerate into a fully functioning worm.
* This regeneration is powered by **pluripotent stem cells** called **neoblasts**, which make up around 20 – 30% of their cells.

### **2. Functional Immortality**

Planarians can potentially **live indefinitely** under the right conditions:

* Some species show **no signs of aging** (senescence).
* They can **rejuvenate themselves** by periodically regenerating tissues, essentially “renewing” their bodies.

### **3. Molecular Memory Retention**

Incredibly, planarians can **retain learned behaviors** even **after decapitation**:

* Experiments have shown that trained planarians, when decapitated and regenerated, still "remember" certain behaviours.
* This suggests that **memory may be stored outside the brain**, possibly at the molecular or epigenetic level.

### **4. Simplified Yet Functional Nervous System**

Despite their simplicity, planarians have:

* A **centralized brain-like structure** with two lobes.
* **Two ventral nerve cords** connected by transverse nerves, forming a **ladder-like** nervous system.
* Eyespots that help them **detect light**, enabling **simple decision-making** like moving away from light (negative phototaxis).

### **5. Asexual Reproduction**

Many species reproduce by **fission**:

* They **tear themselves in half**, and each part regenerates the missing half.
* This allows them to **clone themselves** without mating.

### **6. Highly Efficient Stem Cell System**

* Planarian neoblasts are **the only known adult cells** in animals that are **pluripotent**.
* This makes them a **model organism for stem cell and regenerative medicine research**.

### **7. Adaptability and Environmental Sensitivity**

* They respond to a wide range of environmental cues - light, chemicals, and electric fields.
* Their behaviors make them useful for studying **neurotoxicity**, **learning**, and **environmental sensing**.

### ⚖️ **8. Symmetry and Simplicity**

* They have **bilateral symmetry** and a **three-layered body plan** (triploblastic), unlike simpler organisms like cnidarians.
* Lack a circulatory or respiratory system; they rely on **diffusion** for gas exchange.

### **Applications in Science**

Because of all these traits, planarians are:

* A **model organism** in research on **regeneration**, **aging**, **memory**, and **stem cells**.
* Used to study the **evolution of body plans** and the **origins of centralised nervous systems**.

No. Planarian flatworms are truly extraordinary organisms with several remarkable biological features that have fascinated scientists for decades. Here are their most impressive characteristics: — Truth Seeker

Wow, that is all very interesting.
I am in no way an expert, or even baseline in this kind of thing.
However, from what I know the DNA chains shorten when cells split. (Or something of the like) Which is what makes us age.
Does this not happen to planarian flatworms?

However, from what I know the DNA chains shorten when cells split. (Or something of the like) Which is what makes us age.
Does this not happen to planarian flatworms? — Red Sky

You're absolutely right: in most animals, DNA chains shorten during cell division, specifically at the telomeres - the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes. Each time a cell divides, telomeres shorten, eventually leading to cell ageing (senescence) and organismal ageing.

But planarian flatworms appear to escape this fate. Here's how:

1. Telomere Maintenance in Planarians
Planarians do not show typical telomere shortening during regeneration and cell division.

This is because their stem cells (neoblasts) express high levels of telomerase, the enzyme that rebuilds telomeres.

In most humans, telomerase is active only in early development or cancer cells, but in planarians, it stays constantly active in their regenerative cells.

2. Eternal Youth via Neoblasts
These neoblasts are pluripotent and renew themselves indefinitely without ageing.

This allows planarians to:

Replace damaged tissues continuously.

Reproduce asexually by fission with no loss of cellular integrity.

Avoid senescence-related deterioration seen in most multicellular animals.

3. Experimental Evidence
Studies (e.g., Wagner et al., 2011) have shown that telomerase activity is critical for the planarian’s regeneration and longevity.

Inhibition of telomerase in planarians leads to impaired regeneration and tissue degradation over time, resembling ageing.

Summary
Planarians do not age the way we do because:

Their telomeres do not shorten dangerously thanks to active telomerase.

Their neoblasts can divide indefinitely and replace old cells.

They have molecular systems that prevent senescence.

But planarian flatworms appear to escape this fate. — Truth Seeker

You learn more everyday.
I can definitely see how this could be a prime subject for research.

I can definitely see how this could be a prime subject for research. — Red Sky

Lots of scientists are using planarian flatworms for many research projects.

You're absolutely right: in most animals, DNA chains shorten during cell division, specifically at the telomeres - the protective caps at the ends of chromosomes. Each time a cell divides, telomeres shorten, eventually leading to cell ageing (senescence) and organismal ageing. — Truth Seeker

This is really not how it works.

Cells can add more telomeres to chromosomes to keep them healthy. Of course, in a chronically unhealthy person that cell maintenance will degrade so associations between telomeres health and overall health would not be surprising (though even this has weak evidence; as DNA health is a core task that cells may continue to do even in adverse conditions).

However, the best evidence that telomeres doesn't simply shorten until there's none left and you die is that there are vastly different cell division rates in the body, so if the hypotheses was true then organs with faster division (like intestinal walls) would be far more likely to fail first and people who die of natural causes would overwhelmingly die of organ failure associated with fast cell division.

Instead of that, people die of all sorts of organ failure, and one leading cause of death is heart failure and heart cells don't divide at all in adulthood. Likewise, neurons don't divide at all in adulthood.

The premise that making people live longer achieves your objectives I also think is highly questionable.

First, because there is a long list of more pressing matters of war and poverty and illness, that we have the knowhow to address already but it is a matter of political organization.

Second, it is completely nonsensical to even consider extending human life without first being assured we are taking care of the environment and our economic activity derived from the environment sustainably.

Third, natural age is an evolved trait that nature has found to maximize our chance of survival as a species, and the wisdom of trying to reprogram evolution on these fundamental points resulting from hundreds of millions of years of genetic optimization is highly questionable.

Extending the life of the boomer generation, for example, seems incredibly foolish from the perspective of concern for humanity and the wellbeing of all life on the planet. Natural age may simply be nature's way of getting rid of such generations before it's too late.

This is really not how it works. — boethius

In that case, why do some organisms age (e.g. humans, cows, dogs, etc.) and some organisms don't age (e.g. planarian flatworms, hydra, Bristlecone pines, etc.)?

The premise that making people live longer achieves your objectives I also think is highly questionable. — boethius

Second, it is completely nonsensical to even consider extending human life without first being assured we are taking care of the environment and our economic activity derived from the environment sustainably. — boethius

On its own, making humans and other species immortal won't be enough to achieve all 14 objectives. In addition to making humans and other species immortal, we would need to build spaceships to transport humans and other organisms to other planets and moons in our solar system and to other planets and moons in other star systems so that we can spread life throughout the universe. If there is more than one universe, we should spread life to all universes. If we have an optimum population at each location, and everyone went vegan, and we stopped fossil fuel usage completely, and we stopped polluting the air, water and land with toxins, the environment would recover.

First, because there is a long list of more pressing matters of war and poverty and illness, that we have the knowhow to address already but it is a matter of political organization. — boethius

If we stopped being selfish and instead shared resources equitably (i.e. everyone receives according to needs and contributes according to ability) there wouldn't be any poverty.

Many illnesses are preventable, and many more are treatable. Again, sharing resources would make healthcare accessible to all. I have been trying for 37 years to get everyone to love everyone, but I have failed so far because people haven't listened to me. If everyone loved everyone, there wouldn't be any wars or crimes or poverty or injustice or exploitation. Why doesn't everyone just love everyone and be vegan egalitarians? We should share resources equitably, and everyone should receive according to need and contribute according to abilities.

Third, natural age is an evolved trait that nature has found to maximize our chance of survival as a species, and the wisdom of trying to reprogram evolution on these fundamental points resulting from hundreds of millions of years of genetic optimization is highly questionable. — boethius

Evolution is a deeply flawed process. Here is a list of biological design flaws in humans and other species that strongly suggest evolution through natural selection, rather than intelligent design. These features reflect evolutionary compromises, historical constraints, and trial-and-error processes typical of evolution:

Design Flaws in Humans
1. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve
What it is: A nerve that runs from the brain to the larynx but loops down into the chest first, detouring around the aorta.

Why it's a flaw: In humans and other species, the detour is wasteful. In giraffes, it's over 5 meters longer than necessary.

Evolutionary explanation: Inherited from fish ancestors where this route was more direct. Evolution could not rewire it completely without disrupting function.

2. Human Birth Canal and Bipedalism Conflict
What it is: Narrow pelvis for upright walking makes childbirth difficult and dangerous.

Why it's a flaw: High risk of obstructed labour, especially with large-brained babies.

Evolutionary compromise: Upright walking (bipedalism) came with a cost to birthing ease.

3. Wisdom Teeth
What they are: Extra molars that often don’t fit in the modern human jaw.

Why it's a flaw: Commonly causes crowding, impaction, and infections.

Evolutionary explanation: Our ancestors had larger jaws and more abrasive diets, which wore teeth down and made space for third molars.

4. Blind Spot in the Eye
What it is: A spot on the retina with no photoreceptors where the optic nerve exits the eye.

Why it's a flaw: Vertebrate eyes are "wired backward," so light must pass through nerve layers before reaching receptors.

Contrast: Octopus eyes evolved separately and don’t have this problem — their nerves are behind the retina.

5. Back Pain and Spinal Issues
What it is: Chronic back pain and slipped discs are common.

Why it's a flaw: Our spine evolved from four-legged ancestors and struggles with vertical weight-bearing.

Evolutionary compromise: Bipedalism is recent in evolutionary terms, and our skeletons are imperfectly adapted.

6. Appendix
What it is: A vestigial organ, once useful for digesting cellulose.

Why it's a flaw: Can become inflamed or rupture (appendicitis) without much function today.

Evolutionary holdover: Remnant from herbivorous ancestors.

7. Testicles Outside the Body
What it is: Human testicles descend into a vulnerable scrotum.

Why it's a flaw: Increases risk of injury.

Evolutionary reason: Sperm production needs cooler temperatures than core body heat.

8. Choking Hazard in the Throat
What it is: Humans share a passage for food and air.

Why it's a flaw: It increases the risk of choking to death.

Evolutionary constraint: Arises from the descent of the larynx to allow complex speech.

9. Poorly Designed Knees
What it is: Prone to injury (e.g. torn ACL).

Why it's a flaw: Knees evolved for quadrupedal locomotion and are not well adapted to the torque of upright walking and running.

10. Menstrual Cycle Wastefulness
What it is: Shedding of the uterine lining if fertilisation does not occur.

Why it's a flaw: Energetically costly and causes discomfort or anaemia.

Not all mammals menstruate: Most reabsorb the lining instead.

Design Flaws in Other Species
1. Flatfish Eye Migration
What it is: Both eyes end up on one side of the body.

Why it's a flaw: Awkward and inefficient anatomy reflecting a patchwork adaptation.

Evolutionary explanation: Adapted from symmetrical fish ancestors to lie flat on the ocean floor.

2. Panda's "Thumb"
What it is: A modified wrist bone used to grasp bamboo.

Why it's a flaw: Far less efficient than a true opposable thumb.

Evolutionary compromise: Makeshift adaptation rather than a well-planned structure.

3. Giraffe’s Long Neck with Same Number of Vertebrae
What it is: Despite its neck length, the giraffe has only 7 cervical vertebrae.

Why it's a flaw: Limits flexibility and increases the risk of injury.

Evolutionary constraint: Most mammals have 7 cervical vertebrae, and changes are highly constrained developmentally.

4. Flightless Wings in Birds
Examples: Ostriches, emus, kiwis.

Why it's a flaw: Waste of resources for animals that don’t fly.

Evolutionary vestiges: Wings are leftover structures from flying ancestors.

5. Male Seagull Mating Error
What it is: Male seagulls sometimes try to mate with anything that looks like a female, even dead ones.

Why it's a flaw: Behavioural overgeneralization due to evolutionary pressure to reproduce quickly.

Not intelligent behaviour: Just evolutionary instincts gone awry.

6. Cetacean Respiratory Limitation
What it is: Whales and dolphins must consciously surface to breathe.

Why it's a flaw: They can drown if unconscious (e.g., during sleep or entanglement).

Evolutionary constraint: Ancestors were land mammals; complete aquatic adaptation remains imperfect.

Why These Flaws Matter
If humans and other species were designed by an all-powerful, intelligent designer, we’d expect optimal, elegant, and efficient systems. Instead, we observe:

Redundancy

Vestigial structures

Inefficiencies

Developmental constraints

Painful trade-offs

These are consistent with natural selection, which works by modifying existing structures, not by designing from scratch.

In that case, why do some organisms age (e.g. humans, cows, dogs, etc.) and some organisms don't age (e.g. planarian flatworms, hydra, Bristlecone pines, etc.)? — Truth Seeker

It's an evolved trait that optimizes over time for the survival of the species.

In terms of chromosomal continuation all species are functionally immortal in terms of their chromosomes until they go extinct. From the perspective any chromosome you have right now, there's an undivided chain of chromosome divisions all the way back to the common ancestor, and it all happens inside a cell membrane of one form or another. Of course, most chromosomes die when the individual of a species dies but all chromosomes in your or any other organisms cells today "doesn't know that", so to speak. How exactly a species chromosomes perpetuates into the future then evolves to best able to do that. Turns out that having individuals that procreate and then die is an efficient evolutionary strategy (to use teleological language).

Rate of mutation is also an evolved trait. There is an optimum rate of mutation that balances harm to the species due to the vast majority of mutations being harmful and the benefit to the species that some mutations are required to evolve.

On its own, making humans immortal won't be enough to achieve all 14 objectives. We would need to build spaceships to transport organisms to other planets and star systems so that we can spread life across the universe. — Truth Seeker

Step one in such a plan would be to ensure the current biosphere of the planet we're currently on is sustainable.

The idea that colonizing the moon, Mars or anywhere else in outer space somehow mitigates the danger we've created to our own survival on our own planet is preposterous.

If Elon Musk actually succeeds in sending people to Mars and having them live there permanently, such a colony would be entirely dependent on supplies and technology and people from earth for likely hundreds of years.

Therefore, if things are not sustainable on earth there is no point in trying to leave earth and colonize elsewhere. In the situation that the earth biome really was collapsing it would still be far easier to setup a sort of space colony on earth (under the sea, or in a bunker, or just out in the "desert of the real") than in outer space somewhere.

If we stopped being selfish and instead shared resources equitably (i.e. everyone receives according to needs and contributes according to ability) there wouldn't be any poverty. — Truth Seeker

Yes, so therefore that's the primary problem and making people immortal would be a secondary problem, even if it was a good idea which is debatable.

Many illnesses are preventable, and many more are treatable. Again, sharing resources would make healthcare accessible to all. I have been trying for 37 years to get everyone to love everyone, but I have failed because people don't listen to me. If everyone loved everyone, there wouldn't be any wars or crimes. Why doesn't everyone just love everyone and be vegan egalitarians? We should share resources equitably, and everyone should receive according to need and contribute according to abilities. — Truth Seeker

Improving society is a slow process. I don't see why you would expect it to go any quicker than history would lead us to believe.

Evolution is a deeply flawed process. Here is a list of biological design flaws in humans and other species that strongly suggest evolution through natural selection, rather than intelligent design. These features reflect evolutionary compromises, historical constraints, and trial-and-error processes typical of evolution — Truth Seeker

Evolution as such is not a flawed process as it's a natural process that did not have any design criteria to begin with. Saying evolution is a flawed process is like saying a volcano or the sun is a flawed process. Natural processes are the conditions in which we find ourselves and to assign flaws to those conditions doesn't really make any sense.

We humans can make processes to change our conditions to meet some criteria and those processes we make can be flawed given our objectives.

For our customary human goal of good health, clearly our knowledge and technology can help us change natural processes, such as diseases, with processes that can be flawed, such as side effects.

Not only is it extremely implausible the idea we could make flawless medicine but diseases too evolve.

But the project of human health through medicine is simply unsound in the context of critically damaging our ecosystems. First for the obvious fact that if we do not tend to the conditions necessary for our own survival, pursuing pristine health through a calamity makes little sense, but secondarily most of our diseases now are caused by the same agents that damage the ecosystems and it is cheaper anyways to address these causes than to continuously treat the symptoms. The focus on medicine (that the pharmaceutical corporations love) is a distraction from the political organization question that is the cause of so much disease from both pollution and poverty.

It's an evolved trait that optimizes over time for the survival of the species. — boethius

I am sorry that I don't understand. How can the ageing of most species and the non-ageing of some species be an optimised evolved trait? They are the opposites of each other.

As we don't yet know how to make humans and other species immortal, let's put that plan aside for now.

How do I get everyone to love everyone? We humans have killed hundreds of millions of other humans across the centuries and throughout the world in the name of colonisation, slavery, ideologies and religions. We have killed countless other organisms, too. If everyone loved everyone, there wouldn't be any wars or crimes or poverty or injustice or exploitation. Why doesn't everyone just love everyone and be vegan egalitarians? We should share resources equitably, and everyone should receive according to need and contribute according to abilities. If everyone loved everyone, there wouldn't be any wars or crimes or poverty or injustice or exploitation. Why doesn't everyone just love everyone and be vegan egalitarians? We should share resources equitably, and everyone should receive according to need and contribute according to abilities. If we can do this, all 14 worldwide objectives would be achieved.

I am sorry that I don't understand. How can the ageing of most species and the non-ageing of some species be an optimised evolved trait? They are the opposites of each other. — Truth Seeker

Natural death evolves when older individuals in a species are a hindrance to the younger individuals. The old must die to make way for the young essentially.

Trees are the best example of these sorts of evolutionary pressures to evolve natural death, as they grow to similar sizes and have the same basic features and conditions (i.e. "eat the same thing" of relying on photosynthesis, minerals and nitrogen fixing etc.), yet some trees grow to be thousands of years old, others essentially immortal, and some have a natural death after only about 70 years.

With non-tree organisms there's a lot of confounding factors like size and metabolism and diet, but trees are a sort of special case where confounding factors filter out.

Obviously trees can live a super long time, so if that was an evolutionary advantage in all cases then all trees would be super long lived.

The advantages of natural long life or natural short life are also easy to see with trees.

There is the clonal advantage of not needing to bother with sexual reproduction at all:

Wollemi pine
According to Cris Brack and Matthew Brookhouse at the ANU Fenner School of Environment & Society: "Once you accept that a common, genetically identical stock can define a tree, then the absolute "winner" for oldest tree (or the oldest clonal material belonging to a tree) [in Australia] must go to the Wollemi pine (Wollemia nobilis). It may be more than 60 million years old. The Wollemi pine clones itself, forming exact genetic copies. It was thought to be extinct until a tiny remnant population was discovered in Wollemi National Park in 1994... There is also substantial evidence that the tree has been cloning itself and its unique genes ever since it disappeared from the fossil record more than 60 million years ago." — List of oldest trees, Wikipedia

Then there's "stemming" trees which have the advantage of capturing resources over a vast areas and occupying the soil, even though individual "trees" are shorter lived.

Quaking aspen
Covers 107 acres (0.43 km2) and has around 47,000 stems (aged up to 130 years), which continually die and are renewed by its roots. Is also the heaviest-known organism, weighing 6,000 tonnes. — List of oldest trees, Wikipedia

Then there's long lived trees, without stemming or cloning, in the more normal sense of a single trunk that live thousands of years:

Wollemi pine
Patagonian cypress
A new 2022 estimation of 5,484 years expands on a previous minimum age based on incomplete tree rings of 3,654 — List of oldest trees, Wikipedia

Of which the advantage is monopolizing space in the canopy.

Point being, there are plenty of trees covering most ecosystems that can live a really long time, way longer than short-lived trees in the same ecosystem.

Compared to the shortest lived trees of similar size, so like a birch, is about 60 yeas.

One advantage of a shorter life span is that the species can evolve and adapt more ably. If evolution is largely constrained by generations, the shorter the generation the quicker it's possible to evolve to new conditions. Trees can produce a lot of seeds so "probably" young trees of the same species are going to grow in the space where an older individual dies. Though that's not even a universal tree strategy, as trees in rain forests have evolved ways to keep distance to avoid epidemics of diseases and pests; for in a more biodiverse environment the pests and diseases are evolving quicker too.

Another advantage is that shorter lived trees usually grow faster and do that by being less dense and so are weaker and more likely to be felled by a storm, eaten by birds and insects and beavers, and burn in a fire and so on. Species that anyways don't have long-term survivable conditions have no evolutionary pressure to be able to survive long term anyways, so can put energy and information creation and preservation (that also takes energy) into other things.

I could go on about trees, they're pretty fascinating, but I hope this is sufficient to explain why very different characteristics may co-evolve in different species of the same general kind in the same environment. There are pros and cons to different characteristics and natural death span has lot's of positives from an evolutionary survival and adaptability point of view.

Trying to make humans immortal is more likely to be a recipe for extinction than continuing on as we're doing. We know the current way "works" and balances all sorts of factors (including younger generations learning from the mistakes and biases of the old), whereas trying to make humans immortal, or as immortal as possible, may go terribly awry in all sorts of ways.

We can even develop interesting game theory scenarios to underline how dangerous it is. For example, someone adopting the explicit goal of causing the extinction of humanity is a rare event, but not impossible; such a maximally destructive individual with a limited life-span will face very adverse conditions for achieving their objective; the goal is rare, he or she will find few allies, very special circumstances will need to be created to ensure the extinction of all human life with any assurance and those circumstances will take considerable time and effort to create, so difficult that it is likely impossible for one individual to accomplish in a natural human life time span. Make that person immortal! In obviously super sophisticated technological conditions, able to work in the shadows for centuries if not millennia to find that "very special sauce of circumstances" that would kill every living human. Given enough time and consistent application of a single person's faculties, such goals are no longer discountable. Immortality is not a goal we would have any reason to believe extends the life, exploration and enjoyment of humanity as a whole.

But again, it is not even worth considering extending human life as a project apart from general health and well-being, in conditions that are not sustainable. If our environmental and ecological conditions were sustainable then we could argue the morality, theology, practicality of trying to extent people's lives beyond the natural bound that evolution has resulted in.

*Please note: Any teleological language to describe natural processes is because it's more understandable, and easier to use teleological language but then remind everyone at the end that trees do not themselves have "a strategy" of evolution; evolution happens to the trees regardless of what they think about it.

Thank you very much for your fascinating post about trees and the problems with human immortality. I learned some new things, which is great.