Molecules don't age, but any collection of molecules with distinguishable states will eventually relax spontaneously to a higher entropy configuration. Keeping a system a certain way requires an input of energy, and eating can satisfy this up to a point, but I think the complexity of the central nervous system in certain animals eventually makes this impossible.
It isn't hard to keep any particular process 'alive'. Stars burn for a long time. The hard part comes with maintaining a process that also requires memory of the past. What would seem to be the difference between a star and biological life is that life maintains a record of some information of its past states in its DNA. However, even on top of this, many animals, especially birds and mammals, have to teach their young and train an incredibly complexly connected brain.
So I think what you end up with is an optimization that trades off between these two complexity drives: a mind and a body. An organism that has invested a lot of time into training its nervous system does not want to completely regenerate it and lose all of that information. However, from a bodily perspective, being able to regenerate would be quite useful. However, making processes more reversible comes at a price (notably, thermodynamically, it would take infinite time. computationally, reversibility requires n^2 steps for some irreversible computation done in n steps), one that is no longer worth the tradeoff if the mind cannot be usefully regenerated.
I guess my point overall is that the brain, since it wants to store information, is inherently destined for breakdown. Regenerating it might be possible, but the interconnections might be so complex that it would be energetically infeasible to maintain this complexity. In humans, the brain already utilizes 20% of our energy budget. As the organism as a whole is being optimized through evolution to do evolutionary favorable things with its energy budget, this means that energy spent maintaining itself physically indefinitely is not worth it, as compared to something like a lobster, which ostensibly doesn't have the sorts of pyramidal neurons needed for a truly, truly complex nervous system and thus might as well live forever.
I assume that people will disagree with the idea that the brain is destined to break down, but if you were 10000 years old today, would you still consider yourself the same person that used to hang out with the pharaohs, having learned and forgotten hundreds of languages, names, families? It just gets absurd at some point, and the energy cost of it all is not worth it compared to reboot(strapp)ing everything from the ground up by having a child.
It is interesting the the mole rats are so long lived, and that they are also eusocial. Since institutional memory may be very important to the colony's survival, having long-lived individuals may be very helpful for an animal incapable of writing things down for posterity.
I would still say that this is all very firmly grounded in thermodynamics.
It isn't hard to keep any particular process 'alive'. Stars burn for a long time. The hard part comes with maintaining a process that also requires memory of the past. What would seem to be the difference between a star and biological life is that life maintains a record of some information of its past states in its DNA. However, even on top of this, many animals, especially birds and mammals, have to teach their young and train an incredibly complexly connected brain.
So I think what you end up with is an optimization that trades off between these two complexity drives: a mind and a body. An organism that has invested a lot of time into training its nervous system does not want to completely regenerate it and lose all of that information. However, from a bodily perspective, being able to regenerate would be quite useful. However, making processes more reversible comes at a price (notably, thermodynamically, it would take infinite time. computationally, reversibility requires n^2 steps for some irreversible computation done in n steps), one that is no longer worth the tradeoff if the mind cannot be usefully regenerated.
I guess my point overall is that the brain, since it wants to store information, is inherently destined for breakdown. Regenerating it might be possible, but the interconnections might be so complex that it would be energetically infeasible to maintain this complexity. In humans, the brain already utilizes 20% of our energy budget. As the organism as a whole is being optimized through evolution to do evolutionary favorable things with its energy budget, this means that energy spent maintaining itself physically indefinitely is not worth it, as compared to something like a lobster, which ostensibly doesn't have the sorts of pyramidal neurons needed for a truly, truly complex nervous system and thus might as well live forever.
I assume that people will disagree with the idea that the brain is destined to break down, but if you were 10000 years old today, would you still consider yourself the same person that used to hang out with the pharaohs, having learned and forgotten hundreds of languages, names, families? It just gets absurd at some point, and the energy cost of it all is not worth it compared to reboot(strapp)ing everything from the ground up by having a child.
It is interesting the the mole rats are so long lived, and that they are also eusocial. Since institutional memory may be very important to the colony's survival, having long-lived individuals may be very helpful for an animal incapable of writing things down for posterity.
I would still say that this is all very firmly grounded in thermodynamics.