Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age • Hacker News Board

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#51

Post by charrondev » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:21 PM UTC

sirobg wrote: post #26

> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…

It’s a well written fable. There’s a pretty well narrated animation of the fable as well [0].

[0] https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY?si=3zJIGBlfWmnml5i-

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#52

Post by benlivengood » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:22 PM UTC

flqn wrote: post #44

narcraft wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an argument against pursuing equitability as an end in and of itself

I disagree, it's more an argument that even though advancement of human capability can bring great gains (defeating the dragon) we need to pursue equitability in these gains or otherwise they are unethically allocated. The rising tide should raise ALL boats, otherwise inequitability will lead to social instability as seen througout human history so far.

While I agree that modern societies and especially global wealth are very inequitable I think medicine is one of the areas where it is almost universally agreed in practice to raise all boats. Generic medications are made available, foreign aid is often in the form of medicines and medical support, and global institutions are funded with the aim of raising all boats. Should life extension become possible through medicine or treatments it seems likely that the existing process of trying to achieve global medical equity will continue. Clearly life extension will be very highly valued and if it is out of reach of 95% or 99% of the human population there will be intense pressure to socialize its benefits to everyone. Where I can see problems is if life extension is out of reach of 50% or 75% of the world population due to material/equipment/personnel costs; that's a lot harder to socialize globally and would be similar to advanced cancer treatments and organ transplants/replacements which could be seen as the leading edge of longevity treatments.

I don't think there's a moral argument against expensive cancer/organ treatments being made available in wealthy countries; it doesn't seem like any progress on treating those diseases will be made at all if the treatments can't be made available, regardless of their extreme inequity.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#53

Post by wongarsu » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:28 PM UTC

thfuran wrote: post #15

Symmetry wrote: post #10

It's not clear from the article but animals can generally live quite a bit longer than you'd expect if they continue to grow for their entire life, which is true for some types of fish. Gunk that builds up inside or between cells gets redistributed over larger areas, as do cells that become senescent. And larger size means more space for memory T cells. Those are only some aspects of aging of course.

Don't cancer rates tend to correlate positively with number of cells?

Yes, but the bigger you are the bigger the tumor has to be to notably impact your health.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#54

Post by alpaca128 » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:30 PM UTC

ijhuygft776 wrote: post #48

sirobg wrote: post #26

> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…

The environmental conditions are unknown but they know that they are the cause....

If the fish can't be normally observed procreating at times then it's quite obvious it needs different conditions.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#55

Post by makz » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:33 PM UTC

bestouff wrote: post #7

> In one study, bigmouth buffalo had stronger immune systems than younger fish. Or maybe only fishes with a stronger immune system get older ?

You may be into something. I’ve been on the fish keeping hobby for decades and right now the number 1 cause of mortality of captive fish is immune system overload.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#56

Post by cubefox » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:36 PM UTC

sirobg wrote: post #26

> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…

Unfortunately he doesn't address overpopulation. Admittedly, birth rates are declining rapidly.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#57

Post by yieldcrv » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:43 PM UTC

sirobg wrote: post #26

> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…

Evolution doesn’t choose these things and it isn’t a conscious choice with the organism

It’s just random mutations selected for or we never get to see a buffalofish, the latter happens far more often and is the crux of evolution by natural selection: orders of magnitude more species that died out

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#58

Post by ijhuygft776 » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:45 PM UTC

alpaca128 wrote: post #54

ijhuygft776 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The environmental conditions are unknown but they know that they are the cause....

If the fish can't be normally observed procreating at times then it's quite obvious it needs different conditions.

are they environmental conditions though?

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#59

Post by ghodith » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:46 PM UTC

flqn wrote: post #37

sirobg wrote: post #26

> Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions because they require very specific environmental conditions—most of which are still unknown—to procreate. That’s why the fish evolved to live so long: It’s an evolutionary adaptation to account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann. This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our bra…

A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane conditions only to die early.

Imagine a world where immortality is given to 1% of the populace per year such that in 100 years everyone is immortal, but it is given in order of decreasing wealth.

Now imagine a world in which no one is immortal for 99 years, but on the 100th year everyone gains immortality at once.

The latter is vastly more equitable, but to choose such a world would be horrific in cost of lives.

I can imagine the dystopia that would come from an undying elite ruling over a mortal underclass. However, in any situation short of that extreme, I would never promote anything that would slow the search for immortality. Especially not for the mere bog standard modern conception of equity; crab-bucket mentality here will only serve to keep us all scrabbling in the dirt.

Re: Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age

#60

Post by MostlyStable » Sun, Jan 21, 2024, 6:47 PM UTC

pvaldes wrote: post #38

MostlyStable wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is important to validate any aging method, including otoliths, and there have been cases of system misaging. The fin ray and scale based ages used in West Coast ground fishery management in the 80s resulted in systemic under aging that contributed to the over fishing and collapse of multiple rockfish species, for example. But otoliths in temperate fish species are generally one of the most consistent and reliable…

> otoliths in temperate fish species are generally one of the most consistent and reliable aging methods Ha ha ha haaaa!! Sorry, but that claim was hilarious. I had the (lets call it) "pleasure" to read otoliths in the past, and consistent and reliable is not how I would describe it. Not even close. For most species it just happens that nobody validated the system first. This means that everybody extrapolates, but no…

I currently work in a lab that primarily does otolith based growth and aging. It is and has been my primary job for over 7 years (although I don't do that actual reading of the otoliths, I work with the data that comes out of it)

I think you are misreading my comment. I did not say that it was easy or that it was always consistent and reliable. I said it was one of the most consistent and reliable aging methods, which is an inherently relative statement. Compared to other common aging techniques such as scales, fin rays, and vertebrae, it is exactly those two things: more consistent and reliable.

It can be more and yet still not particularly. And, in many cases, yes, it is not always very reliable and in many species it has not been specifically validated. But it is still the best, more reliable technique we have for aging fishes. In addition, please note that literally the first sentence in my comment was the importance of validating an age technique. I am well aware of the issues in aging. Those issues absolutely do not amount to the (implied) conclusion of your comment that they are garbage that shouldn't be relied upon.

Also, just a piece of advice: you do not come off as particularly authoritative when you make wildly hyperbolic statements like contesting claims of 800 year old fish.