Live data from Hacker News

Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

gravityandlevity.wordpress.com

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#11
post #9

In my opinion death is simply explained by the human body not having reached it's final form yet. We are constantly evolving, but evolution has been concentrating on short term survival for a millenia. It's only recently, in evolutionary terms, that long term life has become viable. I would say our healing abilities point to the fact that we are evolving along this path, and that it is also an obtainable goal, just l…

Why would we evolve to love any longer than we currently do? We obviously need to live long enough to breed (i.e. to about 40) and probably having reasonably healthy grandparents may be an advantage but I can't see why we would be evolving to live any longer than that.

It might be that people enjoy living without children for as long as possible in the current western economic/cultural climate.

This age might keep increasing because those who try too late won't reproduce. So it's passive selection for longevity.

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#12

Another useless scientific article about obvious things. Yes, you have a higher chance of dying when you get older, is this really a "news" we need on HackerNews? Notice that the article doesn't even offer new facts, only statistical observations.

> Yes, you have a higher chance of dying when you get older, is this really a "news" we need on HackerNews?

The nature of this connection can be different. This is what discussed in the article.

> Notice that the article doesn't even offer new facts, only statistical observations.

Statistical observations are facts.

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#13
post #6

It is quite obvious that living organisms are not build to last - we are supposed to live just long enough to produce and raise some offsprings.

We are not supposed by anyone. We just happen to be as result of chaotic natural process.

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#14
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would we evolve to love any longer than we currently do? We obviously need to live long enough to breed (i.e. to about 40) and probably having reasonably healthy grandparents may be an advantage but I can't see why we would be evolving to live any longer than that.

It might be that people enjoy living without children for as long as possible in the current western economic/cultural climate. This age might keep increasing because those who try too late won't reproduce. So it's passive selection for longevity.

I think it's passive selection for reproducing in your late teens or early twenties out of bad luck. Even a century ago, your wealth level had a tremendous impact on whether or not your prodigy will survive, so there was an evolutionary selection for social success; with modern welfare state, I don't think that there's any selection bias towards the wealthy.

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#15
Some other items worth considering in the context of why mortality rates look the way they do:

https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2001.2430

"Reliability theory is a general theory about systems failure. It allows researchers to predict the age-related failure kinetics for a system of given architecture (reliability structure) and given reliability of its components. Reliability theory predicts that even those systems that are entirely composed of non-aging elements (with a constant failure rate) will nevertheless deteriorate (fail more often) with age, if these systems are redundant in irreplaceable elements. Aging, therefore, is a direct consequence of systems redundancy. The theory explains why mortality rates increase exponentially with age (the Gompertz law) in many species, by taking into account the initial flaws (defects) in newly formed systems."

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714478115

"For many cancer types, incidence rises rapidly with age as an apparent power law, supporting the idea that cancer is caused by a gradual accumulation of genetic mutations. Similarly, the incidence of many infectious diseases strongly increases with age. Here, combining data from immunology and epidemiology, we show that many of these dramatic age-related increases in incidence can be modeled based on immune system decline, rather than mutation accumulation. In humans, the thymus atrophies from infancy, resulting in an exponential decline in T cell production with a half-life of ∼16 years, which we use as the basis for a minimal mathematical model of disease incidence. Our model outperforms the power law model with the same number of fitting parameters in describing cancer incidence data across a wide spectrum of different cancers, and provides excellent fits to infectious disease data. This framework provides mechanistic insight into cancer emergence, suggesting that age-related decline in T cell output is a major risk factor."

And of course the SENS synthesis of the compelling evidence for aging to be the consequence of accumulated damage of various sorts:

http://www.sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research

"Many things go wrong with aging bodies, but at the root of them all is the burden of decades of unrepaired damage to the cellular and molecular structures that make up the functional units of our tissues. As each essential microscopic structure fails, tissue function becomes progressively compromised – imperceptibly at first, but ending in the slide into the diseases and disabilities of aging. Decades of research in aging people and experimental animals has established that there are no more than seven major classes of such cellular and molecular damage, shown in the table below. We can be confident that this list is complete, first and foremost because of the fact that scientists have not discovered any new kinds of aging damage in nearly a generation of research, despite the increasing number of centers and scientists dedicated to studying the matter, and the use of increasingly powerful tools to examine the aging body. In its own way, each of these kinds of damage make our bodies frail, and contribute to the rising frailty and ill-health that appears in our sixth decade of life and accelerates thereafter."

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#16
post #9

In my opinion death is simply explained by the human body not having reached it's final form yet. We are constantly evolving, but evolution has been concentrating on short term survival for a millenia. It's only recently, in evolutionary terms, that long term life has become viable. I would say our healing abilities point to the fact that we are evolving along this path, and that it is also an obtainable goal, just l…

No. Here are some views on aging that capture present thinking on the topic.

https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.100640

"Why do humans live longer than other higher primates? Why do women live longer than men? What is the significance of the menopause? Answers to these questions may be sought by reference to the mechanisms by which human aging might have evolved. Here, an evolutionary hypothesis is presented that could answer all three questions, based on the following suppositions. First, that the evolution of increased human longevity was driven by increased late-life reproduction by men in polygynous primordial societies. Second, that the lack of a corresponding increase in female reproductive lifespan reflects evolutionary constraint on late-life oocyte production. Third, that antagonistic pleiotropy acting on androgen-generated secondary sexual characteristics in men increased reproductive success earlier in life, but shortened lifespan."

https://arxiv.org/abs/1103.4649

"Understanding why we age is a long-lived open problem in evolutionary biology. Aging is prejudicial to the individual and evolutionary forces should prevent it, but many species show signs of senescence as individuals age. Here, I will propose a model for aging based on assumptions that are compatible with evolutionary theory: i) competition is between individuals; ii) there is some degree of locality, so quite often competition will between parents and their progeny; iii) optimal conditions are not stationary, mutation helps each species to keep competitive. When conditions change, a senescent species can drive immortal competitors to extinction. This counter-intuitive result arises from the pruning caused by the death of elder individuals. When there is change and mutation, each generation is slightly better adapted to the new conditions, but some older individuals survive by random chance. Senescence can eliminate those from the genetic pool. Even though individual selection forces always win over group selection ones, it is not exactly the individual that is selected, but its lineage. While senescence damages the individuals and has an evolutionary cost, it has a benefit of its own. It allows each lineage to adapt faster to changing conditions. We age because the world changes."

https://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/news_press/news/press/forever_y...

“A long-term experiment with the freshwater polyp Hydra, a microscopic animal: observing many hundreds of them for almost ten years, researchers calculated that Hydra’s mortality permanently stays constant and extremely low. For most species, including humans, the probability of dying within a specific year rises with age. Scientists regard this as an indicator of the decay of the aging body. For Hydra, evolution seems to have found a way to escape the mechanisms of the physical deterioration of getting older. Hydra apparently manages to keep its body young because it does not senesce by accumulating damages and mutations, as most other living beings do. Hydra are probably able to follow a special self-preservation strategy, as its body and cellular processes are rather simple. For instance, Hydra are capable of completely replacing parts of the body that are damaged or are somehow lost. It can even fully regenerate if its body is destroyed almost completely thanks to a high number of stem cells. Stem cells are capable of developing into any part of the body at any time. Additionally, as Hydra replaces all of their cells within only four weeks, it regularly and quickly expels all cells that have been changed genetically by mutations. Thus, damages have little chance to accumulate."

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#17
post #6

It is quite obvious that living organisms are not build to last - we are supposed to live just long enough to produce and raise some offsprings.

We are not supposed by anyone. We just happen to be as result of chaotic natural process.

I think it is like that for the survival of the species..

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#18
post #9

In my opinion death is simply explained by the human body not having reached it's final form yet. We are constantly evolving, but evolution has been concentrating on short term survival for a millenia. It's only recently, in evolutionary terms, that long term life has become viable. I would say our healing abilities point to the fact that we are evolving along this path, and that it is also an obtainable goal, just l…

Why would we evolve to love any longer than we currently do? We obviously need to live long enough to breed (i.e. to about 40) and probably having reasonably healthy grandparents may be an advantage but I can't see why we would be evolving to live any longer than that.

Creating new humans is costly and risky.

Maybe immortal humans give you a better bang for the buck.

Re: Your body wasn’t built to last: Math of human mortality (2009)

#20
Google wants to use naked mole rats to conquer death https://www.popsci.com/naked-mole-rat-aging

+

Recent advances in computational epigenetics https://www.dovepress.com/recent-advances-in-computational-e...

+

End-to-end guide design for CRISPR/Cas9 with machine learning https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/crispr/

Will require new math.

Post reply on HN