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

Dog Aging Project

dogagingproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 133 posts

Re: Dog Aging Project

#111

Post by scotty79 »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #101
scotty79 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently I had an interesting thought that basically people did almost the same to themselves spontaneously through culture. Which might influence various aspects of human behavior, like social interactions in general, cooperation and means of competition, mate selection. We might have genetic changes that are not maladaptive only in the culture that introduced them. As technology forces culture to evolve it might tu…

> evolutionary fitness But there's no such thing as an objective "evolutionary fitness". It only makes sense to speak of evolutionary fitness in a given niche.

Yes. And this niche moves as culture evolves.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#112

Post by op00to »

enraged_camel wrote: post #93
bsenftner wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, it does not appear like a research institute at all. It looks like the styling that the owners of People's Magazine or the National Enquirer would use to market their 'research nonprofit' where the actual research contribution is 3% of their revenues, while supporting fat salaries for an executive staff. It just looks too consumer and not academic, not serious. It is simply too feel good. It has the trappin…

Several people have corrected you, and yet you keep going, claiming that this is some sort of fraud. What's your deal? Why are you spreading FUD?

Maybe the person just really loves it when their dog dies early. :(

Re: Dog Aging Project

#113

Post by x0x0 »

bsenftner wrote: post #83
carls wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This project is a research project out of the University of Washington, led by several of the professors there. I believe the lab is the Healthy Aging and Longevity Institute. They share a list of academic publications that have resulted from the project, and their Team page lists the full names a sizable large number of people. Their FAQ indicates that the cost of the DNA Kit and other things are covered by the proj…

Honestly, it does not appear like a research institute at all. It looks like the styling that the owners of People's Magazine or the National Enquirer would use to market their 'research nonprofit' where the actual research contribution is 3% of their revenues, while supporting fat salaries for an executive staff. It just looks too consumer and not academic, not serious. It is simply too feel good. It has the trappin…

If only you could check your claims with the investment of 20 seconds and 2 clicks

Here, now it's one click

https://dogagingproject.org/our-team

Re: Dog Aging Project

#114

Post by Jensson »

bumby wrote: post #109
Jensson wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those two are naturally related. If getting pregnant at 10 usually lead to death, then your genes will avoid that if getting pregnant at 10 is common. However if socially we prevent girls from getting pregnant at 10 then biology can make them go through puberty at 10 without risk, since they will not get pregnant anyway. Edit: As for the playfulness point, for us humans we punish kids for being playful when they reac…

I'm finding it hard to understand your point or not finding that argument particularly convincing. We can socially change much faster than we can biologically evolve. Meaning, the change in birth age can be heavily influenced by social factors (birth control, resource abundance, requirements for self-sustainment in adulthood) much faster than biology would adapt. We can be extremely socially different than those who…

> I don't know any parents who would want their child to stop playing at 7 years old.

Parents don't decide what happens to the kids at school though.

> We can socially change much faster than we can biologically evolve.

If the genes were always there but they died constantly 200 years ago it just meant that we no longer cull those people early, and after a couple of such generations we now have them around. Early puberty is still not common, it just exists, that makes it more likely to be biological than social, if the social changes did it then early puberty would be the norm today rather than a very rare exception.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#115

Post by BiteCode_dev »

ben_w wrote: post #104
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll let me know the next time you'll have to require the permission of your dog to pee, or when it can trigger surgery to cut your balls or put you down.

That humans are dominant doesn't preclude us having co-evolved.

Co-evolved is a very different word than domesticated.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#117

Post by vouaobrasil »

paulcole wrote: post #50
vouaobrasil wrote: post #36

Obviously most people disagree, but I don't think we should search for medical advances that make life significantly longer. We should search for ideas that make the finite life on this planet significantly better. A longer life is dangerous. If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse since the desire to accumulate wealth over that time would be insane.

> A longer life is dangerous. Just so we know, at what point should we have stopped searching for medical advances that make life significantly longer? I’m assuming you’re anti-chemotherapy?

Industrial civilization has brought about a massive increase in human population which is destructive. One way or another, life on this planet would be much better for a smaller number of humans.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#118

Post by vouaobrasil »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57
vouaobrasil wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the "throwing wealth away" is a big difference. And it's not just a matter of wealth. It's what people do with that wealth, such as influence the world negatively. The top 1% of those hell-bent on doing strange things usually don't have children that are similarly obsessed. And finally, it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people m…

> it would increase the TOTAL number of people, which would exacerbate the situation because an absolute total number of people means even more exploitation by the rich The hypothesis is exploitation scales with population?

Yes, it does, if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#119

Post by vouaobrasil »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54
vouaobrasil wrote: post #36

Obviously most people disagree, but I don't think we should search for medical advances that make life significantly longer. We should search for ideas that make the finite life on this planet significantly better. A longer life is dangerous. If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse since the desire to accumulate wealth over that time would be insane.

> Obviously most people disagree I’d argue this is the popular take. With almost any medical research. “Don’t play god” and all that. At least while the benefit is hypothetical. > If people could live 150 or 200 years that will make the problems on this planet much worse Climate change would become a peach. We love to talk about thinking of the children, but self interest is more powerful among most. Longer lives mea…

No, it wouldn't, because no matter how long people live, they cannot imagine many years in the future, even if it's their own future.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#120

Post by vouaobrasil »

typewithrhythm wrote: post #71
vouaobrasil wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for the people most rewarded by our current system This includes people like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, who would make the world better off by the cognitive nonexistance.

Tech billionaires are always a weird focus for this kind of sentiment... Compared to the likes of the Rothschilds (just as a well known example) they are harmless, transparent, and meritocratic.

Still a net negative.
Post reply on HN