↓ Skip to main content

The Right and Wrong of Growing Old: Assessing the Argument from Evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Knowledge In Society, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
The Right and Wrong of Growing Old: Assessing the Argument from Evolution
Published in
Knowledge In Society, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13347-012-0066-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bennett Foddy

Abstract

One argument which is frequently levelled against the enhancement of human biology is that we do not understand the evolved function of our bodies well enough to meddle in our biology without producing unintended and potentially catastrophic effects. In particular, this argument is levelled against attempts to slow or eliminate the processes of human ageing, or 'senescence', which cause us to grow decrepit before we die. In this article, I claim that even if this argument could usefully be applied against attempts to enhance other human traits, it cannot be valid in the case of attempts to enhance the various processes that constitute senescence. I begin by reviewing the biology of ageing to show how it consists of a number of unrelated traits. Then, following the arguments of a number of evolutionary biologists, I explain that every one of these traits is a product of evolutionary 'neglect' rather than 'intent'. Finally, I consider the strongest version of the argument against enhancing senescence, which acknowledges these facts about the evolution of ageing but insists that we have nevertheless have prudential reasons to avoid enhancement wherever there is some uncertainty about the genetics or evolutionary function of a trait. I provide two reasons for rejecting this version of the argument as well, even in the case of human senescence, where such uncertainty is currently significant.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Master 4 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Professor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 6 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,765,160
of 25,774,185 outputs
Outputs from Knowledge In Society
#131
of 563 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,960
of 168,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knowledge In Society
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,774,185 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 563 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 168,818 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them