Senescence, change, and competition: when the desire to pick one model harms our understanding

The question of why we age is a fundamental one. It is about who we are, and it also might have critical practical aspects as we try to find ways to age slower. Or to not age at all. Different reasons point at distinct strategies for the research of anti-ageing drugs. While the main reason why biological systems work as they do is evolution, for quite a while, it was believed that aging required another explanation. Aging seems to harm individuals so much that even if it has group benefits, those benefits were unlikely to be enough. That has led many scientists to propose non-evolutionary explanations as to why we age. But those theories seem to fail at explaining all the data on how species age. Here, I will show that the insistence of finding the one idea that explains it all might be at the root of the difficulty of getting a full picture. By exploring an evolutionary model of aging where locality and temporal changes are fundamental aspects of the problem, I will show that environmental change causes the barrier for group advantages to become much weaker. That weakening might help small group advantages to add up to the point they could make an adaptive difference. To answer why we age, we might have to abandon asking which models are correct. The full answer might come from considering how much each hypothesis behind each existing model, evolutionary and non-evolutionary ones, contributes to the real world's solution.