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

121–130 of 133 posts

Re: Dog Aging Project

#121

Post by [deleted] »

Jensson wrote: post #114
bumby wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pub…

[deleted]

Re: Dog Aging Project

#122

Post by scotty79 »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #76
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…

>Recently I had an interesting thought that basically people did almost the same to themselves spontaneously through culture. I think this already well known in evolutionary biology circles though not through culture. I don't recollect but it was most likely Robin Dunbar who said it, people ganging together to kill of the most annoying/bullying/maladjusted members.

It's not really about killing maladapted. In each generation of humans more than 10% of them don't pass their genes to next generation. From the point of view of evolution it is as if they got killed young. Mate selection is way stronger mechanism of evolution then plain survival.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#123

Post by skissane »

oooyay wrote: post #107
pavel_lishin wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And mentally. We never stop playing. Do animals stop? There are plenty of examples of play in adult animals: - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03766... - https://medium.com/illumination/wild-animals-at-play-982e26e... - https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-07899-003

My elder female dog loves to play and the way in which she plays has only gotten more nuanced over time. She's even adapted to play with me, play with other dogs, play with smaller dogs, and play with puppies. The basic semantics of her language of play are all the same: she bows, she'll yawn, she barks and does that side-eye glance. Sometimes she'll dance. If she gets really hyped up she'll get the zoomies. Dogs, fr…

A lot of dog play is rehearsing hunting-related behaviours. For example, playing tug-of-war over a toy is practising playing tug-of-war over the kill, which helps to break it up into manageable portions. I wonder if adult domestic dogs are more prone to play because they have limited opportunities to use these natural instincts for real? Maybe in a pack of wild dogs where they are constantly being used for real, they would be less likely to rehearse them

Re: Dog Aging Project

#124

Post by dennis_jeeves2 »

scotty79 wrote: post #122
dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Recently I had an interesting thought that basically people did almost the same to themselves spontaneously through culture. I think this already well known in evolutionary biology circles though not through culture. I don't recollect but it was most likely Robin Dunbar who said it, people ganging together to kill of the most annoying/bullying/maladjusted members.

It's not really about killing maladapted. In each generation of humans more than 10% of them don't pass their genes to next generation. From the point of view of evolution it is as if they got killed young. Mate selection is way stronger mechanism of evolution then plain survival.

>It's not really about killing maladapted.

I'm sure I did not misunderstand Robin Dunbar, He actually said homicides were common. If a bunch of people hated someone they ganged up and killed him/her, leading to humans being relatively more neotenistic than other primates.

(I used maladapted in a very loose way: especially being maladapted socially, we are not talking about being maladapted phicially and other ways)

Re: Dog Aging Project

#125

Post by skissane »

scotty79 wrote: post #73
xapata wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And mentally. We never stop playing. Note the popularity of memes about "adulting".

What's interesting is that rigid culture that forced us to do adult behaviors despite retaining juvenile traits, now when it's getting lifted and replaced with freedom to do whatever you please might leave many individuals maladapted from the evolutionary standpoint to prolonging their genetic line. Which I think is perfectly fine. New generations that are better adapted to the culture of hi-tech freedom will arise f…

> New generations that are better adapted to the culture of hi-tech freedom will arise from the few that currently accidentally already do the evolutionarily correct thing.

That's one possibility. Another is subcultures which prioritise reproduction over personal freedom will end up demographically dominant in the long-run. Look for example at Kiryas Joel, New York, and similar ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, whose growth shows no signs of slowing down in the foreseeable future. Of course, exponential growth can't last forever, but nobody knows what exactly the limit is and when it will be reached – it might not be reached until they've become a very substantial percentage of the population, maybe even the majority.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#126

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #118
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> if you include exploitation of natural resources in the calculation

Well yes, if you change definitions I am a pink elephant.

There is no evidence “exploitation by the rich” of everyone else scales with population. (There is some evidence for the opposite.)

Even if we talk environmentalism, economies of scale mean larger populations tend to be more efficient ceteris paribus. And the whole premise is foundational wrong: longer adult lifespans predict lower childbirth and population declines. Not increases.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#127

Post by bsenftner »

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?

"several people"? I engaged with two people and moved on.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#128

Post by paulcole »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #117
paulcole wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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? And what specifically should the “smaller number of humans” be?

Re: Dog Aging Project

#129

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #116
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? If 150 years is dangerous, why not 80?

If 1000 years is dangerous, why not 80?

> If 1000 years is dangerous, why not 80?

Yes. This is why a thousand years probably isn’t dangerous.

Re: Dog Aging Project

#130

Post by JumpCrisscross »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #119
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> no matter how long people live, they cannot imagine many years in the future, even if it's their own future

Care to substantiate that claim? Modern history flies straight in the face of it, from savings to childbirth rates correlating negatively with longevity.

To be clear: I’m not suggesting longer healthspans are a panacea. We are amply capable of screwing it up, e.g. by entrenching powerful people. But dynasties and aristocracies already exist. For every great builder of fortunes there are a hundred squanderers, even in the same lifetime. And despite it all, there is something to be said for age granting wisdom for most all the way up to senility, which an extended healthspan should forestall.

Post reply on HN