Nature designed us to age for a reason.
Harmful genes that cause Huntington’s disease — a disease
that attacks the neurons in the brain — only show up between ages 30 to 50, in
some cases after the birth of offspring. There are many other diseases that
accumulate later on in life, dementia being the main one. In 1952, Peter Brian
Medawar tried to explain this by suggestion that older adults accumulate
mutations and become a "genetic dustbin."
In Medawar's theory, there is no advantage to aging, nor are
there any benefits for older people to live. Aging is simply the result of
declining functions before death. This biological interpretation proved
popular.
To explain aging, biologist George Williams in 1957 came up
with the "antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis" (named by Michael Rose
in 1982). Pleiotropy is the phenomenon where one or a few genes control more than
one trait. The antagonism part comes from the negative effect that emerges
later on in life. As an example, testosterone in men might result in an
attractive, muscular body in youth, as well as masculine features, such a deep
voice and facial hair, but it also increases the likelihood of prostate cancer
in older age, hence the antagonistic part of the pleiotropy. Although it is the
positive aspects of the pleiotropic gene that are selected for in natural
selection, the antagonistic aspect also sneaks into the gene pool. Aging is
seen as an invisible cloak that sneaks bad genes into the gene pool by cloaking
them under positive traits when young. Aging, in this view, has subverted the
whole process of natural selection by disguising itself as a positive attribute
in early life and then transforming — in a Jekyll-and-Hyde metamorphosis — into
an aging liability. Somehow nature has been hoodwinked into allowing people to
get old. Aging becomes a problem, a genetic dustbin of humanity. From here, it
is fairly easy to see the approach: We need to cure aging, because nature made
a mistake. The hubris of judging that nature made a mistake ignores that nature
might have a different perspective from ours.
As a species, survival is nature's only ambition.
The only way that successive generations prosper is if they
are a good fit with their environment. Each generation must survive long enough
to create another generation. Nature keeps our genes immortal, and it has two
extreme methods to achieve this single aim. One way is to produce an enormous
number of offspring and hope that a few survive to then pass on their genes
(known as r-selection). Another approach — one followed by humans — involves
having few children whom we nurture until adulthood and beyond (known as K-selection).
Therefore nurturing — protecting and supporting others — is our survival
strategy, not competition.
Nurturing involves having things to teach and living long
enough to be able to teach them. Which is why humans live long and have such a
big brain; the two go together. Some 1.6 to 1.9 million years ago, our brain
grew very fast; some say — not without contention — that brain expansion
mirrors the development of cooking. Cooking, making food more easily
digestible, resulted in greater availability of nutrients for the hungriest
organ in our body — our brain. Nature engineered us to have both a big brain and
longevity; they are intricately intertwined. We can see this through
mathematical models that show a leap in predictive value when older people are
included in the equation. Whether or not older people have a disease, the
presence of older people in the family predicts longer-living children and
grandchildren.
In the wild, most mammals die once they lose their ability
to reproduce. Humans are different. We continue to live well past our capacity
to reproduce, especially females. Is nature wrong again, or does nature have a
special role for older people?
What the genetic dustbin proponents do not appreciate is
that older people, especially grandmothers, have a statistically positive
effect on their community. In 2004 while examining the “grandmother effect,”
Mirkka Lahdenperä of the University of Turku, Finland, and her colleagues found
statistical evidence that a grandmother has a decidedly beneficial effect on
the reproductive success of her children and the survival of her grandchildren.
Older adult humans promote the survival of the species. Unlike any other
animal, we also transfer wealth, capital, and wisdom to our successive
generations way past our reproductive period. When gene survival includes the
broader community, then older people have a positive effect on their chances of
survival.
By 1973, John Maynard Smith and George Price introduced game
theory to evolutionary problems. While classic game theory sees players making
rational choices on the basis of individual gain, evolutionary game theory posits
an awareness of what others might do and the development of strategies to
counter that decision. It is a social decision mode, not a purely individualist
one. Maynard Smith argued that since everyone dies, evolution does not benefit
individuals. Evolution is designed to benefit the community. In this
interpretation, it explains that the strategy humans employ is based on
benefits to the community, rather than benefits solely to the individual. Such
a model fits the outcomes we see in reality. This insight was revolutionary and
transformed the argument from one where aging is seen as a genetic dustbin to
one where aging becomes part of a package for survival — a package that
includes older adults contributing, in as yet unknown ways, to the promotion of
our species.
There are instances where antagonistic pleiotropy of
dementia has some really beneficial effects. For example, the Apolipoprotein E
Variant 4 that is strongly associated with Alzheimer's disease might have
beneficial aspects, such as reducing the rate of age-related macular
degeneration, lower testosterone, and although there is no evidence of apoE
isoform reducing infectious diseases, there is evidence that apoE could play a
role in reducing our susceptibility to viruses, bacteria, and protozoan
parasites. Such polymorphisms — having multiple expressions — are abundant in
nature.
Despite this insight, in 2002, 51 renowned scientists —
including such luminaries as Jay Olshansky, Leonard Hayflick, and Bruce Carnes — published a position statement in
Scientific American stating that “aging is a product of evolutionary neglect,
not evolutionary intent.” Again, we are telling nature that it made a mistake,
or at least was ignorant of the consequences. When Albert Einstein first
confronted quantum physics, he said that “God does not play dice with the
cosmos.” What is not reported frequently is the response from Danish physicist
Niels Bohr: “Einstein, don't tell God what to do.” It seems that we are telling
nature what it should do or how neglectful it is, rather than appreciating the
biological system we call life as complete and perfect. We might guess at the
intent of evolution — survival of our immortal genes — but we might not
understand its methods.
Aging and having a big brain go hand-in-hand. It is nature’s
plan for our survival. Older adults improve the survival of both their children
and grandchildren. Looking at aging in a broader context allows us to view some
of the wonders of nature. We have a lot to learn if we listen.
© USA Copyrighted 2018 Mario D. Garrett
References
Browning PJ, Roberts DD, Zabrenetzky V, Bryant J, Kaplan M,
et al. (1994). Apolipoprotein E (apoE), a novel heparin-binding protein
inhibits the development of Kaposi's sarcoma-like lesions in BALB/c nu/nu mice.
J. Exp. Med. 180:1949–54
Bojanowski, C. M., Shen, D., Chew, E. Y., Ning, B., Csaky,
K. G., Green, W. R., ... & Tuo, J. (2006). An apolipoprotein E variant may
protect against age‐related macular degeneration through cytokine regulation.
Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 47(8), 594-602.
Hogervorst, E., Lehmann, D. J., Warden, D. R., McBroom, J.,
& Smith, A. D. (2002). Apolipoprotein E ε4 and testosterone interact in the
risk of Alzheimer's disease in men. International journal of geriatric
psychiatry, 17(10), 938-940.
Lahdenperä, M., Lummaa, V., Helle, S., Tremblay, M., &
Russell, A. F. (2004). Fitness benefits of prolonged post-reproductive lifespan
in women. Nature, 428(6979), 178.
Mahley, R. W., & Rall Jr, S. C. (2000). Apolipoprotein
E: far more than a lipid transport protein. Annual review of genomics and human
genetics, 1(1), 507-537.
Olshansky, S. J., Hayflick, L., & Carnes, B. A. (2002).
Position statement on human aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series A:
Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 57(8), B292-B297.
Pianka, E. R. (1970). On r-and K-selection. The American
Naturalist, 104(940), 592-597.
Roselaar SE, Daugherty A. 1998. Apolipoprotein E-deficient
mice have impaired innate immune responses to Listeria monocytogenes in vivo.
J. Lipid Res. 39:1740–43
Smith, J. M., & Price, G. R. (1973). The logic of animal
conflict. Nature, 246(5427), 15.
Williams, G. C. (1957). Pleiotropy, natural selection, and
the evolution of senescence. evolution, 11(4), 398-411.
