3 ms·

This increase in lifespan is relatively recent in evolutionary history too so it can't involve too many genes, but yes it appears likely that the low hanging fr

This increase in lifespan is relatively recent in evolutionary history too so it can't involve too many genes, but yes it appears likely that the low hanging fruit may have been picked already by evolution. On the positive side we live a lot less than animals like the bowhead whale or the Greenland shark. There is a lot (in theory) that can be done.

wavefunction 8y ago
The low hanging-fruit of longevity has been picked by modern science and technology. Socrates lived to 71. Meanwhile today NPR reported that rubbish pickers in Mumbai live on average to 39.
Symmetry 8y ago
And I'm optimistic about reversing aging in the long run, actually. SENS[1] has some good ideas for eventually solving most things that aren't cancer. It's just that straightforwardish methods that work in mice don't ever seem to also work in humans and there have been a number of these. Maybe it'll work but until we see better evidence I think it's not worth worrying about this. [1]http://www.sens.org/ http://www.sens.org/
derefr 8y ago
> This increase in lifespan is relatively recent in evolutionary history too so it can't involve too many genes It could if it was just an epigenetic switch that was flipped to turn back on an old and complex adaptation. (Which presumably saw regular-enough use through the aeons to avoid genetic drift "rusting" it.)
olliej 8y ago
The vast majority of the increase in average life expectancy is the massive reduction in childhood and childbirth mortality. All of which is a direct result of the massive improvement in the quality of medical care in the 20th century. Not very much genetic impact (such a massive genetic shift would have had to happen in 2-3 generations globally. A genetic source of such a massive change would be incredibly geographically biased: while there has been more more migration in the last hundred year than at any prior point in history, a genetic change would require a complete spread through the source population)
- danieltillett 8y ago
  The genetic change I am referring to is since we split from our common ancestors the chimps and gorillas. Our ageing rate has more than halved since this split. This has been so rapid and so recent that it can't involve that many genes.
  - olliej 8y ago
    We diverged from apes around 7 million years ago, so assuming a way higher than reasonable average generation time of 50 years gives you 140k generations. If we assume a more reasonable turn around (based on 15 being a marriage worthy age in Romeo and Juliet) we easily get around 300k generations. That’s actually quite a lot for evolution to play with.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

wavefunction 8y ago

The low hanging-fruit of longevity has been picked by modern science and technology. Socrates lived to 71. Meanwhile today NPR reported that rubbish pickers in Mumbai live on average to 39.

Symmetry 8y ago

And I'm optimistic about reversing aging in the long run, actually. SENS[1] has some good ideas for eventually solving most things that aren't cancer. It's just that straightforwardish methods that work in mice don't ever seem to also work in humans and there have been a number of these. Maybe it'll work but until we see better evidence I think it's not worth worrying about this. [1]http://www.sens.org/ http://www.sens.org/

derefr 8y ago

> This increase in lifespan is relatively recent in evolutionary history too so it can't involve too many genes It could if it was just an epigenetic switch that was flipped to turn back on an old and complex adaptation. (Which presumably saw regular-enough use through the aeons to avoid genetic drift "rusting" it.)

olliej 8y ago

The vast majority of the increase in average life expectancy is the massive reduction in childhood and childbirth mortality. All of which is a direct result of the massive improvement in the quality of medical care in the 20th century. Not very much genetic impact (such a massive genetic shift would have had to happen in 2-3 generations globally. A genetic source of such a massive change would be incredibly geographically biased: while there has been more more migration in the last hundred year than at any prior point in history, a genetic change would require a complete spread through the source population)

danieltillett 8y ago
The genetic change I am referring to is since we split from our common ancestors the chimps and gorillas. Our ageing rate has more than halved since this split. This has been so rapid and so recent that it can't involve that many genes.
- olliej 8y ago
  We diverged from apes around 7 million years ago, so assuming a way higher than reasonable average generation time of 50 years gives you 140k generations. If we assume a more reasonable turn around (based on 15 being a marriage worthy age in Romeo and Juliet) we easily get around 300k generations. That’s actually quite a lot for evolution to play with.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]