Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

polytechnique-insights.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 99 posts

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#71

Post by 01100011 »

jordanozang wrote: post #51
01100011 wrote: post #19

We can't currently cure aging and there is little convincing evidence that suggests we will be able to anytime soon. This is despite the claims of many attempts at peddling false hopes by folks like David Sinclair and Aubrey de Grey. We can mitigate some downsides of aging at best. Aging is baked into our genes as natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach.

How do you suppose that is? If a species were completely able to avoid the effects of aging (including age-related diseases and degeneration) what evolutionary reason would there be for death at such an early age. Especially in the case of mammals, the process of rearing the young is a large investment of resources which takes a long time to produce a return. Surely it would be better to minimize that expenditure and…

Brenner touches in this in a recent paper:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016749432...

> Second, animal gene sets evolved to allow individuals to acquire food, avoid predation, find mates and successfully reproduce. Long-lived species like humans also provide a substantial investment in caretaking of offspring until they can obtain food, avoid predation and reproduce for themselves. The advantages conferred to youth by parents mean that genetic selections for parental health are extant in caretaking species. Such genetic selections for post-reproductive health are not extant in non-caretaking species (Brenner, 2022a).

...

> Think of it this way: if foxes can reproduce at 6 months, what genetic selections are present for them to live for six years? The ones that live for 6 years might reasonably produce 6 times as many offspring as those who perish in a year but those who die in a year would still contribute to the gene pool so long as they are successful at reproducing. Indeed, experiments done in flies that were selected for the ability to reproduce late in life suggest that hundreds or thousands of genes, not single dominantly acting genes, are modified to allow every organ system to function better over time in the resulting long-lived flies (Burke et al., 2010). However, animals in the wild are under little to no direct genetic selection for longevity beyond that to produce reproductive success.

Personally, my guess is that long lifespans are a tradeoff with reproductive age fitness. Also, it seems there are diminishing returns for longer lifespans and the benefits of knowledge transfer from post-reproductive age individuals.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#72

Post by Orthanc »

grishka wrote: post #54
FiatLuxDave wrote: post #37

Obligatory link: https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon

TIL this exists in text form. Here's the same thing but as a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY

For the record, I suspect most Hacker News readers would get a lot more out of the text version. There was a lot of detail trimming to make it work as a video.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#73

Post by Auracle »

samename wrote: post #60
melagonster wrote: post #28

Is this even a question? ask people how many things they will pay for life of their families.

Simple, if you live longer, you would also work longer

You could stop working right now by killing yourself (or doing it soon). Not many make that choice.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#75

Post by luxuryballs »

kajaktum wrote: post #11
jackblemming wrote: post #3

Interestingly the people who say others should die to “fix” overpopulation change their minds when they’re up. We can solve overpopulation in other ways than letting people die.

It's obviously bad to want other people to die but there is a case to be made that no life (that can suffer) should be created. It also depend on what we mean by immortal, are they technically just alive? Or actively flourishing?

Better to end life entirely than to exist and endure suffering? This is a terrifyingly grim way of thinking, would you really rather not have experienced this world? There must be something in life you think is worth living for.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#76

Post by rapjr9 »

Everyone seems to assume that memory capacity is infinite, what if it is not and our brains fill up and can not function as well after that point? Or maybe in order to store new memories you have to give up older ones by overwriting them. Are you you if you can't keep your memories?

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#77

Post by Euphorbium »

theGnuMe wrote: post #9
solveit wrote: post #5

Imagine that the status quo was that everyone lived forever. If someone suggested that we should kill literally everyone to solve overpopulation or rich people or meaning of life or whatever, they would rightly be called batshit insane.

Would enough people die in accidents? Also heart attacks and cancer. And how would it work? Some drug you take after a certain age?

Aging is not solved unless cancer is solved. Youre guaranteed to getcancer if you live long enough.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#78

Post by jordanozang »

01100011 wrote: post #71
jordanozang wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you suppose that is? If a species were completely able to avoid the effects of aging (including age-related diseases and degeneration) what evolutionary reason would there be for death at such an early age. Especially in the case of mammals, the process of rearing the young is a large investment of resources which takes a long time to produce a return. Surely it would be better to minimize that expenditure and…

Brenner touches in this in a recent paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016749432... > Second, animal gene sets evolved to allow individuals to acquire food, avoid predation, find mates and successfully reproduce. Long-lived species like humans also provide a substantial investment in caretaking of offspring until they can obtain food, avoid predation and reproduce for themselves. The advantages…

Brenner claims "Animal gene sets have been subject to genetic selections for guile, strength and famine-resistance but have not been directly selected for longevity because". This is case 2 in my classification.

He writes, "Indeed, experiments done in flies that were selected for the ability to reproduce late in life suggest that hundreds or thousands of genes, not single dominantly acting genes, are modified to allow every organ system to function better over time in the resulting long-lived flies (Burke et al., 2010)." The case of sirtuin genes, however, is disctintly different from this. The hypothesis there is that increased expression of sirtuins increases longevity. This is a change to the epigenome, not to the genetic content itself, which is what is what Brenner comments on.

Also, what this says is not that "evolution never had any reason to favour another approach", but that evolution (at least in this controlled environment) was not able to stop aging. Perhaps you have other data to support that claim. Also, what this says is not that "evolution never had any reason to favour another approach", but that evolution (at least in this controlled environment) was not able to stop aging. Perhaps you have other data to support that claim.

From the perspective of maximizing reproduction, maximizing fertile population is oviously ideal. Surely, if it's possible for a member of the species that is fertile to continue to reproduce and live longer, this would increase the species' overall reproductive capacity. Obviously, post-reproductive age individuals do not have this benefit. However, it doesn't seem improbable that loss of reproductive ability is caused by aging.

I think that the tradeoff you mention between reproductive age fitness would make sense in the context of other adversity though. If survival in general is very difficult, surviving long enough to reproduce, reproducing as fast as possible, and being able to survive long enough to finish the process while it's placing various stressors on your body is desirable.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#79

Post by dontlaugh »

bsenftner wrote: post #39

Essays like this are dubious at best. As if anyone, any agency or government, could stop one or more billionaires if they chose to pursue immortality despite public opinion saying it's a bad idea. They will, they are, and if asked any elite wealth or world class power will say whatever is expected, despite what they are really doing.

Similarly, who would get such a treatment in the first place? Most working people can’t afford or access far simpler medical care, a problem that’s only been getting worse.

Re: Science says we could “cure” ageing. But should we?

#80

Post by karmakurtisaani »

rapjr9 wrote: post #76

Everyone seems to assume that memory capacity is infinite, what if it is not and our brains fill up and can not function as well after that point? Or maybe in order to store new memories you have to give up older ones by overwriting them. Are you you if you can't keep your memories?

But this already happens all the time. You forget the vast majority of things that happen to you. I feel like we just basically compress the narrative of our lives better and better as time goes on, while dropping details we in the end don't care much about.
Post reply on HN