mutations & aging etc - mutations & aging etc (Oct/24/2009 )

Please only answer the questions when you are answering them as accurately as possible this isnt for homework this is for my own knowledge thanks
let me know if there are one or more human organ(s) that one or more of your answers don't refer to etc
Do mutation(s) eventually contribute to aging no matter what. (Disregarding the fact that we could use cell and/or organ and/or tissue transplants perhaps to make it so they don't contribute to aging)
If mutations do eventually contribute to aging no matter what are there no way(s) to neutralize etc the effects of that 100% etc (Disregarding the fact that we could in theory perhaps use organ and/or cell and/or tissue transplant(s) and/or future technology to neutralize etc the effects of that) ie do they only affect telomere maintenance etc
If mutations do eventually contribute to aging no matter what Is there a way(s) to prevent and/or repair and/or replace all the random mutation(s) that contribute to aging? (disregarding cell and/or organ and/or tissue transplants)
+ Would speeding up and/or slowing down etc life processes etc solve etc the problem etc of aging from mutations

yes and no. The process of aging is believed to be composed of two components.

One parts consist of damage/entropy. Damage that is caused by simply living in an oxidizing oxygen rich environment with UV light, free radicals and other radiation. For instance, one of the causes of aging of the skin is simple oxidation. The collagen fibers in the skin are slowly oxidized by oxygen over the years decreasing their elasticity.

Another component is genetic. A trades off, exchanging the long term viability of the individual for increased fecundity and thus increased likelihood of having more children. An organism has access to only so much energy, which has to be balance cellular/tissue repair against reproduction and the probability of being eaten. Ie the is no point for in investing more energy to live over 100 years if the probability of being eaten is 99% after 30 years. Having few predators (either by being big or actually lacking said predator in your habitat) tends to push a species to live longer and thus produce more offspring over that longer life span.

It probably would. Slowing things down would cause you to live longer. And the easy way to slow things down for us mammals would be to use calorie restriction. It forces the body/cells to be more efficient with their metabolism and to switch to a different programe, of delayed reproduction and better maintenance

But is living on the slow lane be something you call a life?

Better to have no predator, children later in life - spaced evenly over that long life span and genetics to cause your cells to devote more energy to maintenance from cellular damage, (avoiding any make-do and slipshot repair work)