Is Middle Age Evolution's Crowning Achievement?

Hugh Pickens writes "Reproductive biologist David Bainbridge writes that with the onset of wrinkles, love handles, and failing eyesight we are used to dismissing our fifth and sixth decades as a negative chapter in our lives. However recent scientific findings show just how crucial middle age has been to the success of our species and that with the probable existence of lots of prehistoric middle-aged people, natural selection had plenty to work on. 'We lead an energy-intensive, communication-driven, information-rich way of life, and it was the evolution of middle age that supported this,' writes Bainbridge, adding that middle age is a controlled and preprogrammed process, not of decline, but of development. 'When we think of human development, we usually think of the growth of a fetus or the maturation of a child into an adult. Yet the tightly choreographed transition into middle age is a later but equally important stage in which we are each recast into yet another novel form' — resilient, healthy, energy-efficient and productive. 'The middle aged may not have been able to outrun the prey, but they were really good at working out where it might be hiding and dividing up the spoils afterwards.' Although some critics say that middle age is a construct of the middle aged, Bainbridge asserts that one key role of middle age is the propagation of information. 'All animals inherit a great deal of information in their genes; some also learn more as they grow up. Humans have taken this second form of information transfer to a new level. We are born knowing and being able to do almost nothing. Each of us depends on a continuous infusion of skills, knowledge and customs, collectively known as culture, if we are to survive. And the main route by which culture is transferred is by middle-aged people showing and telling their children — as well as the young adults with whom they hunt and gather — what to do.'"

Comments

How is that different from simply old age?

[sourcerror]

Learning is an expensive process, the longer we're able to use those skills the better we're off as a group. I just think that middle age is not qualitatively different from old age, and it's just an arbitrary distinction.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[avgjoe62]

I am middle aged, nearing fifty. I (and my friends) can still hike a trail with my kids, keep up with them and show them interesting things, stuff I remember wondering about when I was their age.

My Mom, however, is 77. She cannot hike those same trails at our speed and she has difficulty remembering things. She stays back with the great-grandkids and the octogenarian dog, baking cookies while we hike.

There is a qualitative difference between middle age and old age, but that may not be readily apparent if you have nothing to compare to.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Oswald]

I would agree that any attempt to define middle age solely in terms of calendar age is bound to be arbitrary. But the summary hits the important distinctions with "resilient, healthy, energy-efficient and productive." At some point for each person (who lives long enough) the advantages of experience can't make for the physical decline, and we transition from "middle age" to "old age."

Of course these terms are pathetically vague, and we need better ones that say what we mean, but the distinction itself is real.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Anonymous Coward]

The eventual death of every individual benefits the species. It ensures that packs don't overpopulate their territory, and that outdated knowledge doesn't persist for too long.

Of course, this isn't of much benefit to the individuals who die, but they have no say in the matter.

At least, not yet.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Sponge Bath]

...and the octogenarian dog

That's an amazingly old dog.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[turgid]

Divide by 7.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Cat_Herder_GoatRoper]

Not buying that outdated knowledge does not persist. For example Religion!

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Curunir_wolf]

Our culture is so old phobic that people just want to bury their heads in the sand.

Yea, you're right, parts of the US culture is like that, certainly much of the media.

And that's why we have old guys hitting on twenty something year old women

Uh, no, dude, that's NOT why.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Anonymous Coward]

so it's not really octogenarian, it's octogenaric-septadivisian?

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[JoeMerchant]

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pak_Protector

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[ankhank]

It's a match made in, er, evolution:

Little children love to hear the same story repeatedly, over and over, using exactly the same words.
Old folks repeat the same stories over and over, and if they get the words wrong, the children correct them.

Perfection.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[cyber-vandal]

I wish I could find a twenty-something woman to share my genetic supremacy with.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[davester666]

You are obviously too fussy about it.

You just need to find one passed out or unable to understand what is going on around her.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[rthille]

Heh, a recent FB status of mine was "I'd like some Tree of Life Root about now." Of course I'm probably too old at this point and it would kill me, but I'm definitely feeling like evolution is done with me and I'm supposed to die off soon to make room for the younger and faster.

And I'm 44.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[avgjoe62]

I am old.

That's OK though. I feel no need to make excuses, to compensate, and my goal is to become (hopefully) wizened really old guy - hopefully healthy, too.

I know my limitations and I accept what nature has given me and is leaving me. Unfortunately, when I express that I hear things like," You're NOT old!" or "Don't be so negative!"

Yep. Been there, done that, made a t-shirt.

I actually am enjoying getting older. It's been the subject of a lot of my writing lately, even this that I posted yesterday.

Getting older sucks sometimes, but there are advantages too. You just have to learn how to appreciate them.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[avgjoe62]

You just described a night at my house during the holidays to a "T".

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Dr_Barnowl]

From an evolutionary POV, it should be the older guys hitting on younger women (you might think that I'm above a certain age, I couldn't possibly comment).

You can only really examine a man for his propensity for success - both culutral and genetic - until he gets out of his twenties. Alas, women have a certain reproductive shelf life. The inbuilt male interest in younger women is a reflection of this - older women are less likely to be fertile, more likely to have troublesome pregnancies, more likely to have children with birth defects. On the other hand, for a man to have reached his forties at all, let alone with all his faculties intact, was no mean feat for much of the history of the human race. A woman would have to weigh this kind of mate in the balance - the advantages of his experience and the proof of his superior genetic quality, versus the possibility that he'll peg out and not be around to provide resources for her - but you can see how a middle aged man is, from an evolutionary point of view, a much better bet than a younger man.

Perhaps the stereotype of the mid-life crisis is actually just a successful evolutionary strategy that just receives bad press. Or perhaps I'm just sucking on those sour grapes... :-)

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[HornWumpus]

Another example: Carl Marx and related philosophies.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[SternisheFan]

I'm 53, so I've managed to survive 32 years longer than I ever thought I would (I used up my '9 lives' well before age 21!) I've mostly worked home improvement type jobs to earn my money, so I find myself in pretty decent health compared to guys I know who are in their 30's, 40's, & 60's. One 300lb. musician friend who has diabetes showed me the handful of pills he has to swallow 2+ times a day, some just to negate the effects of the other meds. He's even hooked on 'pain' pills (read 'heroin' in pill form), the 'pain' is just an excuse for him to go off into la-la land when he wants to. And I just moved from a house where one 60 yr old guy has been nothing but an angry a@@%#&e for his entire life. Now, with only maybe 2 decades left, he'll probably die an angry fool, having missed out on all the good that life had to offer him. All I could do was watch him explode, and think to myself, "I am SO glad that I'm not him!" So my advice to all the younger than me whippersnappers out there, take care of your health. Avoid drugs and alcohol as much as you can. Love deeply, and don't sweat the small shit that life hits us with. Learn to forgive everybody everything, just so you don't end up like that angry guy. Because when your're in your 80's, you'll look back at your life and realize, "It was ALL small shit!" Now go take your fancy iPod and go out and have some fun with the people you love and who love you. Because that's all that really matters in this life, the people that we have in it. Once they're gone you can't replace them. As opposed to things like cars and tech stuff, just replaceable metal and plastic, really. And instead of trying to 'get happy' with drugs, pills, or alcohol, try performing "random acts of kindness". Performing R.A.O.K. will make another passenger on spaceship earth smile and feel happier, which in turn will make you feel happier. It works, really! Have a nice day, slashdotters! ;-)

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Dogtanian]

In that case, please get rid of these non-natural things:

- Indoor plumbing instead of festering outhouses

Outhouses aren't "natural" either, they're just a less sophisticated version of the same human construct.

Air conditioned and insulated homes instead of drafty shacks

Shacks aren't "natural", unless you draw an arbitrary line between what you consider a "natural" human house and one that isn't.

Cushy office jobs instead of back-breaking labor in the sun

Do very primitive societies living what one could reasonably call a "natural" lifestyle (hunter-gatherer?) have "back-breaking labor" in the sense that you meant it?

Yes, agriculture requires "back breaking labour", but agriculture isn't "natural".

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[avgjoe62]

I simply DO NOT see what is so great about aging, the decline of EVERY SINGLE function. I'm supposed to be happy about this?

And your alternative is...?

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[reve_etrange]

Nice try, but Mother Nature sees right through your clever ploy.

Really, as far as evolution is concerned we should all be dying in our early thirties after losing all our teeth and being unable to eat.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Ihmhi]

to make room for the younger and faster.

And I'm 44.

Considering the BMI of your average American 4th grader, you're almost certainly faster than mommy's precious little lardball.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[Sulphur]

It's a match made in, er, evolution:

Little children love to hear the same story repeatedly, over and over, using exactly the same words.
Old folks repeat the same stories over and over, and if they get the words wrong, the children correct them.

Perfection.

Just so, Rudyard is that you?

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[__aaltlg1547]

I am middle aged, nearing fifty. I (and my friends) can still hike a trail with my kids, keep up with them and show them interesting things, stuff I remember wondering about when I was their age.

My Mom, however, is 77. She cannot hike those same trails at our speed and she has difficulty remembering things. She stays back with the great-grandkids and the octogenarian dog, baking cookies while we hike.

There is a qualitative difference between middle age and old age, but that may not be readily apparent if you have nothing to compare to.

If you're nearing 50 and can keep up with your kids, either you are either in hella great shape or your kids are crippled. Your kids are probably slowing down so you can keep up.

My kids hop up mountains like goats after a full week of loafing in front of the computer and television. Youth is a wonderful thing. I wish I still had it.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[__aaltlg1547]

I fail to see any advantage to my offspring in that. I can still produce children in my early 30s. In fact, I did. Two of them. I'm not done raising them yet. They still need my protection and help for a few years yet. And that's why middle age is an evolutionary advantage. We have children that take a long time to mature, so we need to be productive and helpful for at least that long after we stop being able to make them.

Unless we can get their older sister to raise them. I've been trying that but it hasn't quite taken yet.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[reve_etrange]

In most pre-modern cultures people were considered adults at age 13, and it would have been extraordinarily rare to become a parent as late as 30. Based on all the reading I've done, ancient people mostly died in their thirties and forties, of ailments which modern hygiene and medicine have rendered obsolete in the developed world.

What behaviors infer a selective advantage now, and what did so long enough ago in the past to have affected human evolution, are two different questions.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[avgjoe62]

I probably take better care of myself than most and I've always been blessed with good health (thanks for the genes, Mom and Dad!). Very few people that just meet me can guess my actual age, most giving me about ten years (unless they're ALL being very kind...). I know of damn few fifty year old men that are lucky enough to be able to do some of the stuff I do.

Does this mean I could beat my daughters in a foot race? No way. I can't bench press the weight their boyfriends do. I can't swim as fast as I used to or as long as the younger guys can, and I love swimming more than hiking. A good day of horse back riding leaves me sore for a lot longer than it used to. And if we go on a new hiking trail, I am a bit slower than them. Could I do three solid days of hiking like I used to? Well, no, at least not comfortably. There are a lot of areas where I can see I am not what I used to be.

But get me out on the trails my friends and I have been hiking since we were kids and that is where I do really well. I know every twist and turn, every slippery rock, every rotten branch. It would be very hard for anyone to hike these trails like I do.

And that probably brings up another difference about age - I like to go where I know what to expect. I'm not as big on exploring new places as I was when I was in my twenties and thirties. I'd rather go where I know the surroundings. I leave the exploring and blazing new trails up to the kids. That is just not me anymore.

I expect too that there will come a day when I am not up to doing what I can do now. Probably within the next ten years, I'll be looking longingly at the rocker on the front porch when we set out for a hike, but that day is not here yet. I'll enjoy what I can while I can and hopefully gracefully surrender the things of my youth (and middle age) when I must.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[__aaltlg1547]

Whether a girl became a woman at 13 depended on genetics and how she ate -- just like it does today. Even today it can be later than 15, even in girls who are well-nourished. Menstruation at 13 only happened in girls who had plenty to eat, and that means that the tribe had ready access to plentiful food. That situation was the norm in some areas, but not in others.

That aside, a girl might likely become a mother for the first time at 15. If she lived to 30, she was just as likely to be able to raise her children as she had been at 15 or 18. Once she became infertile, her risk of death per year decreased because she no longer faced the risk of death due to a pregnancy-gone-wrong. So she had a better chance of raising her young children.

Men never faced the risks associated with pregnancy. At 30, their chance of raising a child to adulthood required them to live to 45. That's hardly any more difficult than living from 15 to 30. Maybe easier, because by 30, they've gotten wilier and wiser, avoiding many dangers. In primitive tribes, most men didn't need to worry about the first big danger of modern middle age: heart disease. Their hearts stayed in good shape because they had to exercise and had little opportunity to overeat.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[reve_etrange]

If you go look at my original post, I was actually just pointing out that a man's age contributes to birth defects just as a woman's does. I was willing to be drawn into this aside, though, because it's a fascinating topic.

In my reading, modern scholarship indicates that ancient people mostly died in their thirties, though some - mainly the very wealthy - did live what we would consider "full" lives. I am more inclined to believe the forensics than ancient record keeping; it is the latter that tends to present evidence of "old ancient people."

It's a controversial area, which does not even touch upon the idea of an evolutionary - that is a biological - impact on the species.

Here are some links I came up with (representing an array of reasonable views):
Tables of ancient life expectancies, with sources.
Review of studies finding "old ancient people."
An archaeologist's blog post discussing this issue.
Roy. Soc. Med. paper finding "old ancient people".
The wiki entry, with lots of information and sources.
A PNAS paper which actually discusses population ratios - very interesting.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[__aaltlg1547]

I see median ages of death for males at about 35. So the idea that men were "old" at 30 is not supported by data. More than half of the men lived longer than that, and about half of the women lived longer than that. So it doesn't make sense to me in the light of that data to say that a person was unlikely to live to be 45 or 50 -- old enough to see children born to them at 30 to adulthood. That's only 15 or 20 years past median, and we know the standard deviation must have been quite large because 20% or so of children died in their first 5 years.

And I think it's clear that there was a reproductive advantage to living long enough to see your grandchildren.

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[smellotron]

I wish I could find a twenty-something woman to share my genetic supremacy with.

Genetic supremacy? And you're posting on /.?

Re:How is that different from simply old age?

[reve_etrange]

It's self selecting since it's all based on whose ages were recorded i.e. not the proles.

Sounds Familiar...

[lobiusmoop]

Brains Work Best At Age of 39.

(Lawn. Off.)

Author is middle aged

[sideslash]

Author David Bainbridge is 44. And 25 years ago he wrote a book claiming that teenagers are the pinnacle of human existence.

(OK, so it wasn't 25 years ago. But that would have been funny.)

Re:Hmm...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Boomer "science". :-)

"Look! We're still the center of the unverse! The reason for human existence!"

Calm down, Grandpa.

Middle Ages

[openfrog]

For a moment, I thought this was a libertarian article about the Middle Ages being the crowning achievement of human evolution, or civilization...

I hope I am not giving them an idea...

Re:Middle Ages

[grahamd0]

You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of libertarians.

Re:Middle Ages

[JoeMerchant]

For a moment, I thought this was a libertarian article about the Middle Ages being the crowning achievement of human evolution, or civilization...

I hope I am not giving them an idea...

I had this thought, with the logical support that since the Middle Ages humanity has increasingly protected the genetically weak and infirm and thus stopped the "survival of the fittest" evolution.

Of course, today we're selectively breeding by different criteria....

Re:Middle Ages

[kermidge]

And what are the fittest? If memory serves, Darwin et al considered those most able to accommodate change as the most fit to survive. That is, in a given species' population, those individuals who can both adapt to changes and pass on their genes increase the likelihood of the survival of that species.

Rather puts the "survival of the fittest" arguments in a different light, no? My observation is that the concept is mis-used or abused by people pushing their own agenda or trying to justify an otherwise indefensible action.

One wonders how robust were Gutenberg, Brahe, Galileo, Newton, any of that ilk out and about over that span of centuries.

Re:Middle Ages

[ultranova]

You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of libertarians.

Really? Because the Middle Ages combined a weak central government with great personal freedom for the rich (the nobility) with low taxes and no support for the poor and weak. That sounds pretty much what libertarians have constantly stated they want. Even the idea that people tend to gravitate to positions they "deserve" was present; they called it "Divine Right".

Re:Middle Ages

[grahamd0]

I wouldn't call the absolute dictatorial rule of a hereditary autocrat a "weak central government" and I wouldn't call systematic pillage "low taxes", and setting people up in a life of privilege because they're born better than the common man is not a libertarian ideal. So yes, my original comment stands.

Except...

[gQuigs]

My very limited understanding was that evolution really could only work if the survivors were of reproductive age. If they are great at surviving and making children then it would work, otherwise not.

Ah.. fine I read the article:
"The probable existence of lots of prehistoric middle-aged people means that natural selection had plenty to work on. Those with beneficial traits would have been more successful at nurturing their children to reproductive age and helping provide for their grandchildren, and hence would have passed on those traits to their descendants. As a result, modern middle age is the result of millennia of natural selection."

So really it's grandparents that this article is really getting at. Middle aged for the purpose of having your offspring's offspring survive. That actually makes sense.

Re:Except...

[Jessified]

So really it's grandparents that this article is really getting at. Middle aged for the purpose of having your offspring's offspring survive. That actually makes sense.

That makes perfect sense when you consider menopause.

Evolutionarily, when does it ever make sense for a species to "willingly," as it were, make oneself infertile? In our case, the advantage is that the females stop reproducing and focus the remainder of their energy on their current descendants, rather than produce babies up until death and spread the resources thin.

Re:Except...

[xstonedogx]

If limited resources were the main issue, I would expect andropause to have a similar "shutdown" phase instead of just being a decline. And having copious offspring to compete against other groups over limited resources would be advantageous.

It seems more likely to me that the evolutionary advantage of menopause is from preserving the life of the female (thus allowing her to help her grandchildren survive). Older females are much less likely to produce viable offspring and much more likely to die in the process than their younger counterparts.

Re:Except...

[cavebison]

Interesting. One way of thinking about it is a progression. Surviving till your teens, you could reproduce but not transfer very much knowledge onto the next generation. Surviving into your 20's, more experience and information is transferred.

So it follows that, for a species that survives mainly on skills & know-how not instinctively known, the more information that can be transferred from older people to younger, the better.

Therefore, the evolution of the *preference to have older people in your community*. It's not "middle-age" that evolved, as such. What probably evolved is the desire we have to lengthen our lifespan!

Perhaps the only reason we have a desire to live longer, is the "selfish gene" of passing as much knowledge to new generations as humanly possible.

Of course now we ignore old people, so there goes that theory. :)

Information from a time-independent perspective

[Empiric]

Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same."

--Thomas

Hey, it's what I do here.

it's a good thing

[haemish]

As an aging geek, and as much as an aging body sucks, I wouldn't trade my wiser more developed brain for my younger body.

Crowning achievement are MILFs

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, without middle age there could be no MILFs. Therefore, middle age is evolution's crowning achievement indeed. QED.

Re:Crowning achievement are MILFs

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarah Palin is a GMILF, so she represents an evolutionary breakthrough.

Re:Hmm...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Baby boomers aren't really middle-aged any more. Depending on how you define "baby boomer," "middle age," and "old age," anyway. But if you were born five years after the end of WW2, you're old enough to start collecting Social Security this year.

Re:BS

[Brad1138]

I'm 47 and I feel and know that I'm over the hill. Life's something that takes place before you're 30.

REALLY? I am 45 and can still ski and hike with the best of them. I don't feel close to being over the hill. My son is 18 and skis like a maniac, but I can still wear him out. Old is a state of mind, and "middle age" or 40s/50s is definitely NOT old. My father played tennis into his mid/late 70's.

I hope you are just trying to provoke conversation, if not, I really feel sorry for you.

Oblig. Calvin and Hobbes

[xstonedogx]

Crowing achievement? No. That would be Calvin.

Re:Hmm...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

I'm being a little bit farcical with my comment. Born in late '64, I am "the last of the boomers".

Close enough to understand and ID the foibles and phenomena, but also really keyed to what were "GenX/Slacker" milestones and ethos.

Heh! We were 20 somethings, that hated the 80's as the happened!

Knowledge is key

[erroneus]

Without the more aged and experienced to teach the next, there is no perpetuation of knowledge, experience and wisdom. Without it, we only have instinct.

Re:Knowledge is key

[Wraithlyn]

Using pretty absolute language, aren't we?

We haven't had to rely exclusively on direct verbal perpetuation of knowledge/experience/wisdom since the invention of writing. One may make qualitative arguments of course.

Re:Hmm...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Ah yes. You were one of those cynical, jaded people we 80's teenagers looked up to, because you'd seen and done it all. ;)

Seriously, I suspect your cultural milestones are a lot closer to mine than they are to Beaver Cleaver's. Considering that a fair number of your contemporaries were the children of people born in the immediate post-war spike, it seems really absurd to lump the entire group together.

Re:BS

[JoeMerchant]

I had an assistant manager when I worked at a grocery store in college. He was 22 years old, had a wife, 2 kids, house, and a career that was "going places." His boss, the store manager, was just like him but 15 years further on - making six figures and managing one of the highest traffic stores in the chain. That man, 37 years old, looked like he was 65, and acted like he felt he was 65. The way the cocky 22yo am was going at things, chain smoking, creeping around corners to "keep tabs" on everyone, blowing a gasket when things didn't go his way, he was going to look worse than the gm by the time he hit 35.

The gm was starting to mellow out, only worry about the important stuff, didn't really ever get mad anymore, he was much more effective than the hair-trigger assistant - but it was a hard lesson for him to learn.

On the other hand, I know a guy who's about 62, owns his own company of 100 employees, comes to work 3 or 4 days a week for 5-6 hours a day, does what he likes, treats everyone more or less fairly, and is having a great life. At 62, he's in much better shape than the 37 year old general manager who learned the hard way what stressing out really does for you.

Re:Doesn't make sense.

[alen]

it's not reproduction, but having your genes go on

being alive in middle age means you can take care of your grand kids while their parents work and give them a chance to have more kids. if you look around the cultures with the strong extended family traditions like latinos and asians seem to have more kids

a lot of the english/irish/italian/ kids can't wait to move halfway across the country as soon as they can. in other cultures where you stay closer to your parents you can have more kids if they help take care of them

Re:Doesn't make sense.

[IdolizingStewie]

Yes, but if you can live long enough to keep your kid from dying at 15 while he's still showing off trying to get laid, then you've helped to pass on your genes further. If you can watch your grandbabies while your kid is out hunting, you've helped to pass on your genes further. The continuation of your bloodline doesn't stop with your first red-faced, squalling brat.

Re:BS

[JoeCommodore]

Relax, you're over the hill only when you think you are. Many a new career began at midlife ( I notice that's around the age for people to start their own business/profession, and not work for others as much) - especially artists and writers, stuff where you have to live a bunch of years of experience in order to create.

You may not be doing all stuff you did in your 20s, but that doesn't mean it can be no less exciting.

Dolphins live to middle age

[retroworks]

...But do not have opposable thumbs, I thought that's what made us special. I would assume that humans are going to have to survive as a species several more millenia before being crowned as the most successful on an evolutionary scale. If we don't, then perhaps "middle age" will be determined to have been what doomed us.

"Middle" age?

[markdavis]

>"dismissing our fifth and sixth decades"

Middle implies the center of a group of three or more. To me "middle age" is the period around the middle of average lifespan. So I think middle age is probably more accurately ages 30-50.

50-70 ("fifth and sixth decades) are not middle age, unless one thinks the average lifespan is 120...

Who makes up these strange definitions?

Re:"Middle" age?

[HornWumpus]

First Infant, then child, then youth, then young.

Is 18 0% of 80? Is 20 young?

That said 70 is not middle age. But 59? Depends on the person, everybody loses it at a different age. BTW your first decade is 0-9, second 10-19, third 20-29...sixth 50-59.

Losing it?

Re:BS

[reboot246]

Bah! I'm 59 and STILL not over the hill. Now get back to work so you can pay into Social Security! I want some money to be there when I start collecting it. :p

Recent scientific findings show

[onebeaumond]

Exactly what? The authors don't offer a testable prediction of their hypothesis. For example, one would think that biological limits to maximum lifespan would be affected. What phenotype emergence mechanism is being proposed? This sounds like group selection, which has specific testable, limitations as well. Alll in all, I would really hesitate to use the term "scientific findings show" to describe this hypothesis.

Re:Doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a little blurb years ago by a guy who was in the peace core in the Caribbean. In a little village, 200 people or so. There was one really old guy who was eighty or some such. He was long past being able to do much more than gossip and look after small children. Till the day they heard over the radio that a hurricane was coming. Most people didn't really know what a hurricane was, but he did. He'd been through one when he was a young man. And all these years later he knew what to do. He had young men go into the forrest and bring back logs, showed them how to brace the insides of homes. To board up the windows, block the doors. Use rope to tie down the roof. Ordered families to just abandon badly constructed huts. Cut down and remove trees that were likely to come down. People were busy and a little grumpy but did what they were told. Hurricane hit in the middle of the night, 120 mile an hour winds. Most of the poorly constructed houses got knocked down, the ones that were reinforced survived and the people in them. No one died, not in that village. Some other villages, they didn't do anything, and houses fell down, people died.

So the thing is, the old man had already passed on his genes. By living long he was also able to use and pass on hard won knowledge and thus insure that his children. grand children and great grand children survived.

Re:Doesn't make sense.

[jeffb (2.718)]

This doesn't make sense. Does middle age, or indeed has middle age, make it more likely that a person will pass on their genes? Not really. Most people reproduce before then.

Because contributing to the knowledge, skills, and security of your children -- those who will be carrying your genes forward -- in no way influences the likelihood that those genes will persist.

Re:Except that...

[HornWumpus]

God's way of getting back at men? Because just when we get used to planning our lies around the moon (including the go fishing/overtime week) we have to shift into dealing with completely random bombs and hazards?

Think about it. They can't get away from themselves.

We've still got it easy. Y is still the winner of the chromosome lottery.

Re:BS

[BryanL]

Totally. I am 48 and this morning I ran a 5K with my 80 year old neighbor. He wasn't fast but he ran every foot step. He has several other 5Ks planned for the year. Age really is a state of mind.

Re:This must be why there are so many job postings

[Smallpond]

I have 0-3 years experience in all of those skills. Where do I apply?

43 years old. The good and the bad

[Picass0]

On one hand I have eight year old kids that remind me how to feel young and play. They haven't turned into rebelous douchbags and I still manage to be thier hero occasionally.

On the other hand it's tough watching my parent become elderly. The people who were a pain in the ass when I was a teen. I love them more than ever. It breaks my heart knowing I won't have them much longer.

Herd dynamics

[Beeftopia]

I always wondered why women stopped being fertile in middle age, yet live longer than men, if their only (evolutionary) purpose is to squeeze out progeny. So obviously, evolution has indicated something more for them. That something is probably assisting the health of the herd, allowing more members to thrive and procreate, assisting the herd in making decisions that increase its health and/or numbers.

The same would apply to males who become decrepit yet hold on for decades.

When understanding human evolution, one has to look at the human in terms of the herd or pack (pack is probably a better description), and not just standing alone.

Evolution:

[Tablizer]

"And tell those neanderthals to get off my prairie!"

Re:it's a good thing

[Tablizer]

Even when you start forgetting what you installed Linux on?

Middle age is awesome

[mapkinase]

Not plagued by youth stupidity and desire to hump everything, still able to hump everything with cold mind, rich, lot's of free time to explore world, give back to humanity, ability to support higher education for children.

I am 45 and I am living the best time of my life.

Well, duuh

[frisket]

That's why a senator is called a senator ("senex" is the Latin for "old man"). Used to be that a senate was a body of older, wiser, experienced heads who could advise on what to do because they had likely seen it all before, and remembered how to handle it. The last thing you want in a senate is young people with no experience.

Old age and treachery...

[khelms]

... will overcome youth and skill

Re:BS

[12WTF$]

Yeh smoking rugs is really bad for you

Re:it's a good thing

[timeOday]

Would you voluntarily skip the next 15 years of your life (if you could still accrue the wisdom) to get wiser even that much faster? Of course not. As it is you have the present AND the future, how is having JUST the future any better? Hence being young is strictly better, QED.

Life

[Snaller]

"We are born knowing and being able to do almost nothing. "

And most die that way.

Re:BS

[TapeCutter]

I'm 47 and I feel and know that I'm over the hill. Life's something that takes place before you're 30.

I'm 52, cheer up - there are two sides to the hill and its much easier to coast and take in the scenery on the downhill side.

Re:BS

[rycamor]

46 years old here, and the past couple years I had that feeling you're describing. Felt like I was falling apart physically, bored with life, overstressed, working too many hours. Spent a day with atrial fibrillation and then they put me on beta blockers for a few months, which just made me feel more depressed. Cholesterol was high even though I was eating right (according to the conventional wisdom of piling on the whole grains and avoiding fats).

Fact is, I wasn't exercising. I was just fooling myself that a bit of gardening and a couple sets of pushups once or twice a month was enough to stay fit. Also, I was eating way too many processed carbohydrates. Feeling frustrated with my waning strength, I started reading up on diet/nutrition, concepts like glycemic index and came across the concept of the Paleolithic (or Primal) diet, as well as some of the ideas of the high-protein diets as recommended by Gary Taubes. It all boils down to basically a more thoughtful take on the old Atkins diet. Worked magic on me. I know it is being dismissed as a fad by industry-paid scientists and nutritionists, but it plain and simple works. Empirical evidence over specious logic. I cut out at least 95% of the bread, pasta, chips, rice and cereal I had been eating, and almost all sugar and anything with high fructose corn syrup (not that I was eating much sugar anyway). I mostly cut out milk, although ate plenty of cheese and yogurt (full-fat Greek yogurt makes a nice replacement for sour cream), and tried to focus on eating the freshest vegetables (ideally organic locally-farmed, or from my own garden), lots of meat (especially fresh fish, grass-fed beef, and fresh pastured poultry). Also, plenty of quality fats and oils. I now cook almost exclusively with coconut oil or butter, and I even include a little coconut oil in my salads or other foods.

In other words, I worked at getting as far from the industrial food supply as possible. It is easier than it sounds. Every city has local farmers' markets and organic food exchanges, and anyone can grow a vegetable garden.

Then I started exercising. Going off of the grain and sugar insulin roller-coaster suddenly made me energetic I HAD to exercise. I don't go crazy, but I get at least a good solid 20 minutes of exercise a day, and I'm not talking about a leisurely jog. I push myself, with some version of interval training, peak 8 or just a good dumbbell routine. Within 6 months I had gone from a flabby fooling-myself 220 to a fairly muscular 190lb. I have added at least 10lb of muscle so that's 40lbs of fat gone, and I was someone who people didn't even consider overweight. (6'2" hides a lot of flab). The fact is, most middle-age people who haven't kept up a serious exercise routine have spent the past 20 years losing a pound of muscle a year, so even if you have the same BMI, your fat ratio is horribly skewed.

Your body needs to move. It needs to jump and lift things and sprint and climb. That is our optimal state of fitness. Also, your body needs a nutrient-dense diet, which cannot be gotten from a box. I don't care how much they irradiate the food to give it Vitamin [alphabet[x]]. Our bodies either evolved or were designed for an active outdoor hunter-gatherer life, and for eating real food, and if you don't use it you lose it. Modern medicine can keep us alive longer, but if you just take the pill-popping routine, you will spend the 2nd half of your life dying slowly.

Read up on the life of guys like Jack LaLanne. The man was testament to the efficacy of these things. He eschewed food-in-a-box his whole life, did a 2-hour workout every day of his life, and was still performing feats of strength in his 80s and 90s. At 54 he beat a young Arnold Schwarzenegger at a bodybuilding competition. A modern example of this is Art Devany and his wife--both in their 70s and fitter than your average 30-year-old.

It ain't over 'til it's over. I intend to push myself right up until my last year alive. Why go out any other way?

One of my favorite sites on modern health concepts is mercola.com. Eye-opening ideas there.

Re:Doesn't make sense.

[Will.Woodhull]

In the human species, there is a lot more to inheritance than mere genetics. You can lump together all the rest of it under the name "culture". It is cultural inheritance that allows groups of humans to thrive, even when individual members might be genetically crippled. And culture is both developed and passed on mostly by persons between the ages of 30 and 80.

Re:Bollocks...

[Will.Woodhull]

Right. And all of television is produced by 15 to 20 year old kids.

By and large, and excluding hiphop, culture is produced and distributed by middle aged persons. Kids are just consumers, and in general not very good in that role, either.

Re:Hmm...

[Carewolf]

I'm being a little bit farcical with my comment. Born in late '64, I am "the last of the boomers".

No you are not, you are not even close. Boomers were born from 45-52. You were born just before the second boom-generation, made up by the children of the of the boomers.

Re:Doesn't make sense.

[swalve]

I think what the article is saying is that passing on one's genes isn't the whole evolutionary story. It doesn't help the squirrels much if the alpha squirrel impregnates a dozen hot lady squirrels and then gets whacked by a hawk. Now there are a bunch of genetically superior squirrels around that don't know how to avoid hawks. The idea is that the occasional squirrel will come along that does know how to avoid hawks, and will be able to teach the younger squirrels that skill. It's a hardware versus software thing. Basic survival of the fittest ensures good hardware. But increasing the lifespan ensures good software.

In my life, I have (to date) interacted with 5 generations of my family. My great grandmothers were born in the late 1890s, all the way to my cousin's kid who was born in 1991. That's a lot of stories and advice that they passed along. If this were a time prior to written communications, I would have the benefit of 100 years of experience. My great grandmother might have been able to say with her dying breath, "hey idiot, don't build a hut that close to the river, most of my mother's family was wiped out by a big flood on that spot." Through benefit of that advice, I will survive the next big flood that happens decades after her death. And I'll tell my great grandchildren with MY dying breath the same thing. Without that, I make the same mistake and get wiped out. Going back even further in history, this might even be how language developed- the older people couldn't keep up with the youths, but eventually they figured out how to grunt out a "goddammit, stay away from that cliff!" noise that passed down through the generations.

Re:Doesn't make sense.

[swalve]

Sure there would. The human-monkeys that had the slightly longer-living genetics were able to care for their offspring better, ensuring that the slightly longer-living genetics stayed alive. If each generation can manage to stay alive a week longer than their parents, over a million years that adds some years to the lifespan of the population.

Re:Hmm...

[Slider451]

I'm being a little bit farcical with my comment. Born in late '64, I am "the last of the boomers".

No you are not, you are not even close. Boomers were born from 45-52. You were born just before the second boom-generation, made up by the children of the of the boomers.

Generations typically span 20 years. Boomers are generally considered to be those born between 1945 and 1965. So, yes, GP is a late Boomer.

Re:Hmm...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

One cultural indicator is determining the relative importance of The Beatles vs. Nirvana - or Earth Wind and Fire vs. Tupac.

Boomers and Xers generally fall on different sides of those lines.