Evolution of Aging

[Anonymous No.15130007]

What is the evolutionary advantage of aging? If someone lives longer he will have more offspring and thus evolution should make us live longer, Why isn't that happening? Is evolution wrong?
>inb4; enough aging spam

[Anonymous No.15130015]

Because the gene is the fundamental unit of evolution, not the organism. The genes persist across organisms, and is replicated if it comes from one single organism or many generations of offspring. If those many generations of offspring evolve, they can better adapt ever changing environments, hence this method is favoured for preserving any individual gene (even if it modifies slightly over time), especially when death by non-aging methods is guaranteed across a long enough time span anyway.

[Anonymous No.15130019]

>transhumanist propaganda thread

[Anonymous No.15130241]

>>15130007
Aging pushes us to have more children and earlier in life. See menopause and ED

[Anonymous No.15130352]

>>15130241
i don't see why we would need death to do this though

[Anonymous No.15130388]

>>15130007
1. Evolution is more about "good enough" and less about making perfectly efficient systems.
2. It would take more resources to prevent aging that takes away from the resources used for general survival and reproduction which means it is not a good tradeoff

[Anonymous No.15130473]

>>15130388
>1. Evolution is more about "good enough" and less about making perfectly efficient systems.
Yah
>2. It would take more resources to prevent aging that takes away from the resources used for general survival and reproduction which means it is not a good tradeoff
Nah. The area that Aubrey works in gets very little funding. I'm not certain if they get any from the government but I know a fair bit of it comes from donations, and that's why Aubrey has to travel around a lot speaking to try and raise awareness. Even if this anti ageing field received a few % of the total amount that goes into geriatric and cancer research that would be huge. And the benefits if its successful would be immense and Aubrey and others have been working on this for over a decade now and other scientists still engage with him and the others so he's not like some crackpot I guess, it all appears to be legitimate science but the big rich companies aren't spending anything much at all on it so it's up to smaller companies to try to make it work. Pretty much all age related diseases and chronic illnesses and other general ailments would be solved through anti ageing medicine, like Alzheimer's and heart diseases and cancer and heaps of things, almost anything involving cell damage really. People would still die all the time too in car accidents and other unfortunate events, it's not invincibility medicine, some people seem to think it's about living forever but it's just about providing an option for people who feel like they could get more out of life or could contribute more if they had more time etc. Life is way to short and it's gay

[Anonymous No.15130481]

Because there is no evolutionary advantage to not ageing.

[Anonymous No.15130592]

>>15130007
Best guess is it has to do with the thymus and maybe preventing viruses or certain microbia from propagating if someone sticks around too long. If I remember correctly, t-cells have some weird thing where they might've been killed off before leaving the thymus if they start attacking the body.

[Anonymous No.15130621]

>>15130007
>
Don't get hung up on one experience packet or avatar. That's not to say don't stay immersed in the reality frame, that is just to say not to forget the the experiencer is the important thing, not the thing given or the data stream (physical world/experiential data stream/physiologicality/etc) associated with any one particular avatar/experience packet/life time.

[Anonymous No.15130630]

>>15130473
I believe outside of Aubrey there's a company founded by bezos and the main scientists are the ppl from cambridge uni that worked on cell rejuvenation or something like that. There's also quite a few other anti aging companies but most of them relatively young. Max Planck Society has a specific branch called Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing.

[Anonymous No.15130669]

because it's better to FUCK HARD and DIE YOUNG
than it is to be a lousy oldfag

[Anonymous No.15130699]

>>15130019

[Anonymous No.15130759]

>>15130630
Methuselah I think is Aubreys latest startup after SENS. He had planned to do a third startup for years, I think they just have different focuses. I can't remember what the first one is called before SENS. I haven't really kept up with it for the last few years but want to get back into it soon because I'd like to see if I can do some citizen science or something to help, maybe I could program them some software or something. Last time I checked there was a bunch of new research labs opening up though which was good seeing it wasn't just Aubrey out there. This subreddit had most of the latest news, it looks pretty active still
https://old.reddit.com/r/longevity

[Anonymous No.15130762]

>>15130019
*longevity thread. Some of these therapies don't use stem cells or modify genetics or anything like that. Not that that really matters because your genetics are modified over your life by just doing normal stuff

[Anonymous No.15130770]

>>15130762
Not sure how good cnn health is but this article sounds like just regular reporting
>In Boston labs, old, blind mice have regained their eyesight, developed smarter, younger brains and built healthier muscle and kidney tissue. On the flip side, young mice have prematurely aged, with devastating results to nearly every tissue in their bodies.
>The experiments show aging is a reversible process, capable of being driven “forwards and backwards at will,” said anti-aging expert David Sinclair, a professor of genetics in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School and codirector of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/12/health/reversing-aging-scn-wellness/index.html

That's pretty big if it's true though, that ageing can definitely be reversed. Making good progress so far by the sound of it

[Anonymous No.15131365]

>>15130007
Because it hasn't evolved.

[Anonymous No.15131399]

>>15130007
The longer an organism lives, the more likely it is to get cancer. If you invented an organism that never aged, all the individuals would die from cancer eventually.

How fast your cells turn over (to repair injuries) determines your likelihood of getting cancer per year. More cell divisions = more chances to get cancer. But fewer cell divisions means slower or fewer types of repair. Humans don't regrow chopped off limbs because having that ability would confer more cancer than benefit.

Cells invented a way to make cancer rarer, which is to keep track of how many splits a cell line has done, and self-destruct if it goes over the limit. Every cell in your body essentially has a number of reproductions it can do which are going to last your whole life. Any group of cells that decides to reproduce uncontrollably will just hit the limit sooner and die without getting very large. In order for malignant cancer to happen, a single cell needs to randomly get two mutations at once: one to make it start splitting uncontrollably, and one to make it lose the self-destruct failsafe mechanism. This makes malignant cancer extremely rare compared to benign tumors (which happen constantly to everyone).

The natural lifespan is the result of an optimization of these variables: how fast do cells divide and how many times to we let them divide before they hit the limit and self-destruct. The rate and type of injuries that are common for this organism, and how frequently they die from random culling, and how frequently they die from avoidable causes, are all relevant to determining the optimal values.

[Anonymous No.15131405]

>>15130007
I’d say the two are completely apart from one another. Ageing is just something that happens and has no influence on evolution. The speed at which we age is a whole different story.

[Anonymous No.15131425]

>>15131399
Anti-aging research is fake and gay because preventing ageing is impossible. As long as cell division has the possibility to introduce mutations, then we'll live longer on average if cells have division limits then if they don't. The only way they're going to break out of this reality is if they invent a type of genetic material that replicates more reliably than DNA which isn't going to happen.

[Anonymous No.15131471]

>>15130007
The only mutations you will produce in a fully grown state are cancer tumors. Only constant reproduction allows us to adapt and in a world of limited resources the previous generations have to dispose of themselves somehow.

[Anonymous No.15131532]

>>15130007
That is actually an interesting question, with an interesting answer.
So we age, ou bodies become worse for the wear, and at the heart of it, is DNA damage accumulating, causing all kinds of cellular damage, which causes all kinds of DNA damage, untill we become completely unviable.
But what about offspring? How do our offspring start without the accumulated DNA damage? That is because the cells that make offspring, spermatocytes and oocytes are part of the so called germline, a lineage of cells which separates early on, and is under far stricter regulation and control for DNA damage, and they don't devide all over the place (which is a core source of damage).
So these cell lines make or kids. So what gives? Their protection. They can only be protected for so long, and therefore after a while, the offspring would not be viable. And at that point, evolution has no use for you. Disposeable soma theory of evolution and all that.
It is actually in interesting question, if we do manage to increase lifespan, will we also be able to increase how long we can create viable offspring? Current evidence suggests: no.
The greatest longevity increase we are currently capable of is in C. elegans, via modification of the HS metabolic pathway and the IGFsignalling. With this, we can achieve 20 fold lifespan in these little ringworms.
But their fertility actually decreases.

[Anonymous No.15131558]

>>15130007
>What is the evolutionary advantage of aging? If someone lives longer he will have more offspring and thus evolution should make us live longer, Why isn't that happening? Is evolution wrong?
not really, you are the one who is wrong, the longer you live the bigger the probability you will be eaten by a predator or die in an accident of some sort, humans did a lot of risky shit back when evolution played a role, so you see, cause of death was rarely old age back in the day, how can evolution select for something that never happens? what matters for humans is learning the skills as you grow up and as soon as you hit puberty being able to have children and care for them, after you raised your first child there is no more selective pressure, so the theoretical end of life age for a human would be like 30 to 40 year, you will notice that after that age most men start to degrade really fast

[Anonymous No.15133346]

>>15130473
>It would take more resources to prevent aging that takes away from the resources used for general survival and reproduction which means it is not a good tradeoff
>Nah. The area that Aubrey works in gets very little funding
You realize he was talking about an organisms biological resources right?

[Anonymous No.15133461]

>>15130007
>Is evolution wrong?
it knew exactly what would happen when it made us with opposable thumbs

>>15130015
>Because the gene is the fundamental unit of evolution, not the organism.
if i can use a crispr on myself to delete cancer and acne then no it is not, it is a thing of the past at best, accompanied by the dinosaurs

[Anonymous No.15133465]

[Anonymous No.15133488]

>>15133465
>the current debate is whether technologies like crispr should be used to delete "trannysm" and other undesirable things (to parts of society)
>grandpa is still stuck in the past, and wants to use bullets
hopefully they will delete your genes too

[Anonymous No.15134238]

>>15130007
Aubrey De Grey is an alcoholic, sex pest, hack fraud who gives the same TED talk over and over again, tricking the gullible who are afraid of their own mortality into funding his various companies, none of which have produced a single treatment for ageing.

[Anonymous No.15134245]

God wanted more for us then to just be immortal jellyfish

[Anonymous No.15134406]

>>15134238
t. cuck

[Anonymous No.15134577]

>>15131425
Or replace human body parts with robot body parts and digitize the brain

[Anonymous No.15134611]

>>15130007
because of Gal and Cancer
aging is a way to combat it...but you die, so either you die from old age, or from unbound growth.

there may be a way around this but bruv unless you that fucking jellyfish that is immortal you have to checkout at some point.

however if you continue your genetics by having sex and combining with a fit partner then part of you continues...unfortunately a lot of accumulated shit is also lost (like knowledge)

[Anonymous No.15135325]

>>15134238
This. I first heard about him on reddit quite literally a decade ago. 2 more weeks trust the plan lol fuck off. There has ben zero progress thus far because there never will be any progress ever

[Anonymous No.15135328]

>>15134611
I think people fail to understand that "immortal" and even extremely long-lived organisms have metabolisms far too slow to enable complex life.