[jxcole]

Telomeres are intentionally shortened by the body, a process which is no doubt favored by evolution. While we don't know why for sure, it is entirely possible that telomere shortening actually lengthens life.

As telomeres become shorter, cell division becomes slower and metabolism decreases. This means that an older person's cells will reproduce at a slower rate than a younger person's in general. If we suppose that every cell division poses an equal chance at producing a life threatening cancer, then slower cell reproduction at a higher age would likely be beneficial.

Of course this is just speculation, but likely there is _some_ health benefit to telomere shortening otherwise we would not have evolved to do it.

[nootropicat]

I think you're assuming evolution is smarter than it is. Telomeres make sense as an anti-cancer mechanism by making it less likely that cells replicate infinitely. The fact they also put a hard limit on age is not a problem as long as genetic carriers manage to reproduce.

"In the large majority of cancer cells, telomere length is maintained by telomerase."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915101/

[electricwallaby]

My guess is that the shortening of telomeres—and the presumed aging effects—is evolutionarily beneficial because it sets an expiration date on your life. If people could live forever they may prohibit other younger and genetically different people from reproducing and introducing variety in the gene pool.

Certainly having wealthier people live forever now would be bad from a social perspective. Time is really the biggest factor in acquiring wealth and influence. If that goes unchecked then that power can become out of control. Realistically I dont think it was that different thousands of years ago.

[sempron64]

What may be a good mechanism for simple single-cellular, multi-cellular organisms, or even complex animals, is not necessarily a good mechanism for humans. If you’d like to argue that the omniscient deity intends humanity to die then perhaps that can be an acceptable philosophical argument. But evolution as a non-omniscient mechanism is not guaranteed to be an optimally benevolent process. There is no reason in that context to say that mortality is necessary for humanity other than negative emotions.

[joejerryronnie]

With biomedical and technological advancements, this scenario is highly likely. At some point in the future, I can envision almost a divergence in human species - those who age naturally and live similar to how we do today, and those who’s wealth has afforded them medical and technical enhancements prolonging their lives, enhancing their abilities, and allowing them to control vast amounts of resources. Perhaps they will at least keep us as beloved family pets.

[sempron64]

The Netflix series Altered Carbon explores the idea of an immortal class. However, I can’t imagine that an advancement so compelling as immortality will not trickle down in some aspect. The majority of the developed world’s middle class benefits from initially complex and expensive technologies such as air travel, cancer treatment, and advanced computing — differences for the ultra-rich are marginal, not absolute.

[xwdv]

Telomeres aren’t longer because people aren’t choosing to reproduce exclusively with people who produce long telomeres.

[franciscop]

Seems like pure speculation. There are a thousand different mechanisms that would explain it and would not mean "there is some health benefit". Is there a health benefit of white hair? Of wrinkles? Of ...?

Quite the opposite seems true in fact. Evolution tries make us be on our peak at the reproductive age, and a lot of that happens after is a byproduct/consequence of this, not just for health benefits. Most (all?) of the biological "health indicators" decline after this peak age.

[d1amonds]

The white haired ones are for data storage not reproduction.

[arikrak]

There's a theory that setting an expiration on cellular division can help prevent cancer.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11909679/