Live data from Hacker News

Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

scienceswitch.com

41–50 of 74 posts

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#41
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Not really, no. There are examples of complex multicellular animal life with negligible senescence: some species of tortoises, of sturgeon, naked mole-rats — they don't die "of old age", only by illness and violence. But even if there was no free lunch, we might just be able to pay the price in a way that evolution can't; I'd be very surprised if we could…

Lobsters too. But they urinate from their eyes so it's a trade off.

Spat my tea out.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#42
post #36
post #7

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 consequence is a lopsided society where there are few young people and a population that continues to grow. Also, the meaning of young will evolve. To combat this having a child becomes something of an ultra rare privilege, like a green card lottery. Most people don’t get to have one. Because of this, becoming a grandparent because a statistical anomaly. You might think if you get to live so long, you’ll become a…

"With no deaths, wealth concentration grows to the extreme. A handful of people get to control the entire world."

I rather think the treatment will be so expensive, that only the very rich can afford it - and then you have rich immortal overlords, ruling over the lowly mortals.

But that is not a given. If there is treatment for everyone, it might make people more responsible.

Most people today won't have to feel the real consequences once global warming hits hard. But if they know they might - they might see things in a different way. And this goes for everything, also how to maintain a sustainable reproduction.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#43
post #22
post #7

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? Not really, no. There are examples of complex multicellular animal life with negligible senescence: some species of tortoises, of sturgeon, naked mole-rats — they don't die "of old age", only by illness and violence. But even if there was no free lunch, we might just be able to pay the price in a way that evolution can't; I'd be very surprised if we could…

I think it's interesting to consider in evolutionary terms: "what's the tradeoff?"

Why is there the proportion of Methuselan species that there are? Why not more, or less?

One simple take is old age is adaptive: the longer you live, the more chances to mate, the more offpsring, the more likely that your genes survive, perpetuating it.

One simple counter take is old age is not adaptive: the longer you live, the more your learned skills (or "maturity bequeathed survival" in the species where it's hard to say they are learning something), permit you to steal resources from the young, lessening the chances of survival of all offspring, on average. (you may take issue with that implication but you can also see how it is true, or better yet come up with another counter take!).

A second simple counter take is each generation lives longer so there's less evolution.

I think that in a species that learns, has a big brain, and is already adaptive, it makes sense that it will try to live longer because it's primary survival advantage comes not from its evolutionary legacy but from its accrued learnings (one may dispute that, or get pedantic and say "but without the original evolution you couldn't have the accrued culture", but you can also see how it's true), so even tho it's not "evolutionary"-based adaption, it's "self tinkering"-based adaptation. The longer you live, the more you learn, the better your chance of survival. Even if not evolutionary, you "Beat the gene", and make your culture, (and yourself, and all Methusalan individuals in it) more likely to be alive...rather obviously I guess.

So if we do come across aliens from such a species (like us, or orcas, or other big-brained, learning species, but more advanced), then it's likely they live a looong time. Unless they got fussy about some ethical issue with doing so, and decided against it. But any ethics involved seems unlikely to be proscribed by a constraint on energy capture / resource usage...as that would likely be one of the other characteristics of such a civilization, by virtue of us having been able to encounter them, it seems they were already able to master that. So it's highly likely that they live a long time.

So maybe, those "longevity gap" situations that people are so fond of agonizing and preaching about...are already the case on a cosmic scale, and the present race of humans are currently the beneficiary of the "less fortunate position".

Interesting to think tho, has the first child been born that will be the last generation to face death?

I'm reminded of two verses:

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

and

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#44
post #30
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the article, or how it's much more than alarmist anti-science rhetoric. Care to expand a bit?

Sure. I see DNA as a code that has been written by nature over millennia. We don't understand the genetic code well enough to hack or rewrite our DNA to grant us longevity. However, we might discover a species in nature with relevant genetic traits and replicate those parts, assuming that the species is not extinct. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7... If we've managed to wipe out 70% of an…

A-bingo. Yes, so many of our best technologies were inspired by natural information processes.

Aspirin comes from isolating the biologically active chemical, Salicylic acid, in willow tree bark.

Disc laser technology and nano -texture paints comes from reverse engineering the moth eye.

The more processed a food is - that is, the more informatic noise it contains, the less signal, the worse it is, nutrition wise. Also from a quantum history moralistic perspective, less dependency = less inputs = better.

Foods that are closer to death or have undergone a death process are largely toxic to the body in terms of biological debt on the inflammatory (cancer, autoimmune, stenosis of vessels, etc) axis.

Fruits, nuts, seeds, eggs, and cheese are closer to birth and if eaten relatively whole/unprocessed, will be absorbed with low impedence/resistance.

The human body is a biochemical engine. It is versatile and can accept bunker fuel, ie. oily processed garbage. But it'd rather have a high protein high fat diet consisting of foods that haven't been dressed up, or gone through chemically dangerous dying process.

Animals can be carnivores and take the route they wish. If we want to live longer, we have to actually understand what food energy is. Because most of our energy comes from oxygen. When we lose fat, 99% is breathed out. Just like a naturally aspirated car engine.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#45
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very valid point. Our past meddling with ecosystems and biologies have often produced unintended consequences to great detriment, it's not hard to imagine those from this too. 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 l…

> Our past meddling with ecosystems and biologies have often produced unintended consequences to great detriment …we also effectively eliminated hunger, whole classes of diseases, and greatly extended healthy human lifespan across the planet. Ultimately I think this attitude stems from the premise that there's a choice of some "stable state" that humanity abandoned, some kind of safe well balanced haven that we left…

> …we also effectively eliminated hunger, whole classes of diseases, and greatly extended healthy human lifespan across the planet.

Fat lot of good that'll do us if we succeed in cooking the planet...

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#46
post #9
post #4

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…

Some groups care, and I certainly don't want the mice treated cruelly. But I also am willing to let some mice get experimented on to save human lives. I feel most people are.

I've seen protests against and heard about attempts to free lab monkeys. To the best of my knowledge, there are no similar issues around mice in any significant numbers.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#47
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Not really, no. There are examples of complex multicellular animal life with negligible senescence: some species of tortoises, of sturgeon, naked mole-rats — they don't die "of old age", only by illness and violence. But even if there was no free lunch, we might just be able to pay the price in a way that evolution can't; I'd be very surprised if we could…

I think it's interesting to consider in evolutionary terms: "what's the tradeoff?" Why is there the proportion of Methuselan species that there are? Why not more, or less? One simple take is old age is adaptive: the longer you live, the more chances to mate, the more offpsring, the more likely that your genes survive, perpetuating it. One simple counter take is old age is not adaptive: the longer you live, the more y…

Arguably longevity may not be very meaningfully beneficial if you have a slim chance of getting old in the first place. You also must consider human reproductive design where eggs aren't produced on demand.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#48
post #7

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.

Who said anything about infinite cancer free lives? Some animals live longer than us. Many of them have lower cancer rates than us too. Seems like a good idea to investigate the possibility of having longer and healthier lives.

Those animals (e.g. tortoises, lobsters) with longer lives combined with less cancer have significantly lower metabolisms and a far less ... intense ... lifestyle.

Higher cellular respiration introduces higher chances for mutation / inflammation / cell damage. Likewise, high rates of cellular reproduction do the same. Every incidence of that is a roll of the dice for cancer. Extend the lifetime, and you will for sure get cancer, because you already have a very high chance of it.

Evolution in our species has arrived at a set of trade-offs. We don't understand them all yet.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#49
post #7

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.

Why would there be? In the end we're just biological machines, albeit very complex ones. We're made of physical matter arranged in a specific way, physical matter can be manipulated. This means that if a biological machine is damaged or wears out, there is nothing that fundamentally prevent us from repairing it. The only thing that is needed is a proper understanding of how things are supposed to work, i.e. the desir…

Sure, nothing fundamentally prevents us from repairing it from a physical standpoint. The practicality of it is the key question. While the machine analogy is partially useful, genes/proteins/cells are dynamic, adaptive, and can exhibit stochastic traits. This fundamentally contrasts them from traditional machines, and is the reason (imo) we suck at making effective therapies to even treat diseases where we think we know what is going on.

Re: Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life

#50
post #7

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.

This is a reasonable question - we might have found some sort of "no free lunch" theorem! But as others have pointed out, so far no such inevitable tradeoff has been found, which in itself supports the view that it won't be.

There is Mikhail Blagosklonny's theory of programmed aging, in which aging is a byproduct of helpful developmental processes. This does seem to imply we need to mess with some pretty fundamental metabolic processes (hence mTOR inhibitors). That's close to what you're suggesting, but it still seems achievable.

Since all organisms are made of somewhat-similar cells, the bristlecone pine, the immortal jellyfish, long-lived tortoises and so on, are all important existence proofs that negligible senescence with no ill-effects is possible.

As they say, the goal is to die at age 150 with the body of a 30-year-old in a freak skydiving accident! It's been good to see longevity research move decisively out of crank territory in the past 15 years.

Post reply on HN