11–20 of 74 posts
I don't quite understand the premise of longevity research. Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
I don't quite understand the premise of longevity research. Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
The fact that these naked mole rats live 30x longer than other rodants suggest life spam can obviously be controlled. Anyway, I can imagine increased life spam as just costing something (not free) - e.g. you spend more energy on error correction and detection.
There are some good, obvious reasons to not have parents and grandparents around forever in limited resource environments.
I don't quite understand the premise of longevity research. Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
"Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology?" Is there? Is this a widely accepted scientific fact? What does this even mean? That you can't get a benefit without a cost? I thought that this phrase comes from economics. I think you're thinking of economics which is... not human biology. "Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that." So just accept the f…
I was just voicing something about the process: biology is a complex thing and longevity is not attacking things from a metabolic, complex-system viewpoint. As we see here, we are after single pills or single gene activations to carry us to a healthy state. I doubt infinite health unlocks in such form.
Another point is, if you transform yourself to this new state that's immortal but lose most of the biology that makes your body human, what does it mean? (reference to Leto Atreides II here maybe)
Why do people suddenly make it unethical to view death as most-probably-inevitable for human beings?
By 4% which may as well be experimental error, right? The mice could have very well just lived longer due to increased interest/handling/measurement of their welfare. This seems insignificant when compared with other selector genes such as H63D and C282Y, which could potentially double or halve subjects life span depending on environmental factors.
A nitpick: Those are not genes, but mutations, probably describing variants of the HFE gene (according to a quick search).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology?" Is there? Is this a widely accepted scientific fact? What does this even mean? That you can't get a benefit without a cost? I thought that this phrase comes from economics. I think you're thinking of economics which is... not human biology. "Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that." So just accept the f…
You see I'm also a human being such as you who values life and people. It's a bit harsh to comment about my world view sarcastically like that. I was just voicing something about the process: biology is a complex thing and longevity is not attacking things from a metabolic, complex-system viewpoint. As we see here, we are after single pills or single gene activations to carry us to a healthy state. I doubt infinite h…
There are other mammals who live much longer than humans. Evolution optimized for continuation of the species, not longevity of the individual. So there is absolutely optimization room for increasing human lifespan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, you can order 400 genetically identical mice very easily. Eliminating confounds, easy access, quick lifespans (for iteration) and mammals with at least some transferability to humans is the primary reason. Plus, unlike monkeys, no one cares.
> you can order 400 genetically identical mice very easily. And in many variants, for example one’s likely to be diabetic, get Alzheimer’s disease, etc. If you want to know more of mouse dystopia, visit https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services > Plus, unlike monkeys, no one cares. Animal welfare groups do, as does the law in some (most, I hope) countries. I do, too, but I do realize I benefit from that mouse dystopi…
I don't quite understand the premise of longevity research. Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
By 4% which may as well be experimental error, right? The mice could have very well just lived longer due to increased interest/handling/measurement of their welfare. This seems insignificant when compared with other selector genes such as H63D and C282Y, which could potentially double or halve subjects life span depending on environmental factors.
I don't quite understand the premise of longevity research. Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
Even ignoring the biological risks here, the economic risks are quite obvious - we're already in a place where many developed nations have demographic problems where ever greater percentages of the population no longer work, leading to less and less resources available to support the pensions of later generations.
Imagine if all the people who are currently retired got this naked mole rat gene and lived an extra 30 years.
What I do like about the article is that at least part of the longevity comes from reduced incidence of cancer. That's a medical treatment I can get behind.
The primary driver of biodiversity loss and deforestation is animal agriculture.
Act accordingly.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120