The definition used here: "The gradual irreversible changes in structure and function of an organism that occur as a result of the passage of time." is the one usually used in biology and textbooks on aging. However, today we know that with increasing age we may experience losses and gains. Moreover this definition implies that aging as decline is inevitable (with passage of time) and cannot be influenced by lifestyle, experiences, training, etc., which is not true. The concept of aging as lifespan (multidimensional and multidirectional) developmental processes and the notion of plasticity of these processes as first introduced in psychology is increasingly also applied to biology, particularly, but not only, to neuroscience.
Alternative question: Is it valid to distinguish between aging (in the conventional biological sense) and (lifespan) development?
To my knowledge, age should not be linked always to the definition mentioned by you. A multitude of factors in one's life, especially those relating to financial, mental and social contribute to his or her psychology and this reflects on the external appearance and functionality of the individual irrespective of the age he or she actually has.
Ben, Your characterization of lifespan development is too broad, fuzzy and imprecise. On the other hand, the definition of aging (in the conventional biological sense) is more precise. It can be put to test with empirical data. While there is a great deal of heterogeneity in how people age, within any given individual, it is generally held that the "intrinsic" aging process is monotonic. If you allow "extrinsic" inputs to the individual organism, then it is possible, at least in theory, to reverse the state of some of the physiological systems. Even then, at some point in the process, this reversibility of the decline becomes extremely difficult or impossible. No matter how hard you try, you cannot get a 50-year old athlete to perform at the level at which he has performed in his 20s or 30s.
In short, I think your question can be restated as the relative import of "intrinsic" aging versus "extrinsic" stimuli that can modify the intrinsic aging processes.
Agree with Ben. Separating extrinsic from intrinsic processes in definitions of ageing (an alternative conceptualisation is secondary/primary ageing) does not disguise the fact that biogerontology is still stuck in a conceptual rut which is meaningless. The problem is that this cannot be untied from the problematisation of ageing as a negative process. The whole point of biogerontology is not simply to understanding ageing processes in their own right but to find way of arresting or reversing them. Using Foucauldian language you could say that there is discursive coherence in this urge to 'understand' ageing. Another way is to eschew biology as the primary source of knowledge and questions (or problematisation) about ageing and to turn to lived experiences of ageing (which will of course include its physical dimension) and the structural circumstances in which ageing is experienced, made sense of, managed but also its symbolic content. I do think we must refrain always reducing ageing to its biological dimension - because it doesn't lead us anywhere different, only the reinforcement of negative constructions of ageing.
Ok. I respect the non-biological views. So, how about this: "Biological aging is the gradual irreversible changes in structure and function of an organism that occur as a result of the passage of time?"
Perhaps, we grow richer in terms of life experiences and wiser as we age, provided our cognitive faculties do not decline substantially.
Hi Ravi, just wondering...would you then consider physical maturation 'biological aging' then?
Thanks for starting this discussion, Ben!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology