When you figure that out, you'll win the Nobel Prize.
There are lots of overly simple answers, but researchers are still trying to find out at the molecular level why living organisms age and die.
One thing is certain: Like everything else in biology, it can be explained in some way by evolution. For some reason, our bodies evolved to die (a "programmed" death) to make way for younger members of the species, or it just wasn't worth the energy expenditure to keep older organisms alive.
Will science eventually be able to prevent death? Maybe, in a very distant future, but it won't do any of us alive today any good.
2006-09-24 22:41:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jim 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
It's called evolution or nature, put in this way everything which comes on earth has to perish , earth itself will perish with time, it is a vicious cycle of transformation of energy, when u die u give back the things u consumed frm nature back to it, so that evolution can proceed, if this wldnt have been there we all wld have been not came this long, if we just recreate and never perish, we wld have exhausted the natural resources way behind and with it our civilization.
2006-09-25 00:10:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
there is no evidence that we die
there is every proof that we are not our bodies
eg, i HAVE a body - if i have a wife, im not a wife am i - ie, i am a non-body thing that has a body
eg, the same thing cannot change and completely not change in the same time period - if x changes and y doesnt change in the same time period, then it is proven that x is not y - i remain i over decades, my body [and personality, knowledge, memory, thoughts, etc] changes every nanosecond [as electrons spin], every day, every year
the body dies because it is a finite thing, and therefore has finite energy to selfmaintain - also because, being finite, there are other bodies around it, which interact with it, cut it, break it, invade it, unite with it, etc
life and death are the same, because life is nothing without change, and death is nothing but a change - death is the continuation of life [change] not an end of life
change indicates energy, energy equals life
all bodies are changing all the time - bodies are like shapes in clouds, coming and going - change is life, death is change - bodies are morphing all the time - it is only because we ignore the invisible and the visible little changes that we think the body is the same from moment to moment - parts or aspects of bodies remain the same over time, so we say: same body, but change is constant - if our minds were not finite, and we defined a body down to the electron positions, then we would have no idea of bodies persisting through time - so the appearance of enduringness in bodies is a fiction of our abbreviated, broad, summary concept of a body
we are not just alive, we are life - so all change is us - and all change is life - there is nothing but life [including death] forever
if we defined a body right down to the electron positions [instead of just taking a mental snapshot of the body's general appearance], then bodies would last for zero time
zeno's point: an arrow [or any moving thing] at a point in its flight: it cannot be in that position for any length of time, because then it would be motionless during that time - and the arrow cannot be in that position for zero time, or it wouldnt be there at all - so motion [= change of position] is inconceivable, unanalysable - the mind can only take snapshots, stills - the mind 'kills' life [=change] or is blind to life
life is change, change is eternal, so life is eternal
life in the sense of the enduring of bodies through time [my wife today, my wife yesterday, my house today, my house tomorrow] is only the reality that everything does not totally change every instant - some general features remain the same over some time - so death in the sense of the discontinuing of enduringness of bodies is also only a fiction of our ignoring the changes in our concept/percept of bodies or things
like a cloud, which, although changing all the time, may continue to look like a face for some time
something of this is expressed in the sufi saying: i died as a mineral and was born as a plant, i died as a plant and was born as an animal, i died as an animal and was born as a man, when was i ever less by dying?
what imo is wrong about this saying is the idea of progress: - progress is not in fact good, because, if i progress infinitely, it means that i am at every moment infinitely far from perfection - not good
rather imo change [= energy = life] is good, perfect - and there is nothing but change
notice that matter when looked at closely [subatomically] is indifferent from energy - eg, solidity [which is a large part of our idea or imagination of matter] is in fact strength of energy bonds between atoms - also it is impossible to attribute solidity to neutrons protons etc - there is no way to test for and prove solidity of subatomic particles - we merely think of them as solid - pure assumption, imagination, not fact - the fact that particles seem to bounce off one another like billiard balls can be, rather than solidity, in fact energy repulsion
e=mc2 implies identity of energy and matter - matter is not real, matter is only an artifact of our limited percept/concept, of our snapshot, summarising mind, of our blindness to all the infinite detail, and constant change, of 'bodies'
this identity in reality of matter and energy is the same as the ultimate identity of heaven [perfection, eternal life, change, energy, life including death] and earth [seemingly mortal bodies, imperfection] - [mortal = seemingly finitely enduring]
death is an artifact of our misconception of life as enduringness of things [bodies, forms, shapes]
life is real, death is not - death is an illusion
which brings us to the problem of illusion: does illusion exist? - if illusion exists, then it isnt illusion [because illusion must be in fact not real] - if illusion doesnt exist, then it also isnt illusion - so illusion can neither exist nor not exist!
but perhaps her is no problem here - perhaps it is entirely appropriate to the peculiar 'nature' of illiusion that it should be able neither to exist nor to not exist
a straight stick half in half out of water - seemingly bent - is there a bent stick here? - no - is there an appearance of a bent stick? - yes - but apparently this illusion neither exists nor not exists! - or have we somehow confused two meanings of illusion?
i suspect our problem, our contradiction, is merely verbal, that we are confusing reality [bent stick, nonexistent] and appearance
the fact is that the mind can conceive unrealities - we have to purify our concepts with experience
riddle: what exists only when it is not known, and stops existing when it is known? - an illusion
the existence of the illusion depends also on the disillusionment - without the disillusionment, there is no idea of an illusion - without undeception, there is no idea of deception - which raises the question: are we deceived all the time? - apparently it is possible that we are deceived all the time - the conclusion is perhaps that we should abandon concept [unreliable, uncertain] for continuous experience [reliable, but conceptless, thoughtless, imaginationless]
2006-09-25 15:47:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋