4 ms·

I think Jared Diamond had a similar argument that seems valid. Roughly speaking, it boils down to the fact that you need 90 out of 100 subsystems in your body

by chubot 6y ago

I think Jared Diamond had a similar argument that seems valid. Roughly speaking, it boils down to the fact that you need 90 out of 100 subsystems in your body to be working. Your lungs, your heart, your skin, your brain, etc. They interact, but each part also needs to work on its own for you to live. Every one of those systems can fail and leave you dead. Since evolution only "cares" about you to the point where you bear children and raise them, what are the chances that it engineered ALL those systems to last FOREVER? And then it created a single hormone to control every system and make them stop decaying? Such a fantastic over-engineering can't occur purely by chance, 100 times over. ----- In fact ANY mutation that decreased life expectancy but increased fitness during the reproductive years would be selected FOR. So it seems possible you have multiple mutations that prevent you from living much longer than "expected". (I'd even conjecture there's a sexual selection effect going on in the "live hard die young" people, like rock stars, athletes, etc. Their hormones are selected for "living on the edge", and that strategy has proven useful over millenia... i.e. a tendency toward self-destruction is not necessarily something that gets weeded out by evolution) ----- That said I think it's definitely possible for some treatment to make someone who would have lived 60 years last until 70, or even 100. It's harder to imagine going from 100 to 200 (especially with productive life).

restalis 6y ago
"Every one of those systems can fail and leave you dead. Since evolution only «cares» about you to the point where you bear children and raise them, what are the chances that it engineered ALL those systems to last FOREVER?" Evolution works in small steps, over long periods of time (given the humans slow grow up process). Mutations in any of those systems may increase or lower the chances of such failure. Evolution takes care of both, albeit by a small margin. Currently, cause of death number one worldwide is the ischemic heart disease¹ (i.e. the famous "coronary"). Now guess what, there are genetic mutations that work on this out there already, one of them being the Gilbert's syndrome². Yes, forever is unattainable, but (humanity scale speaking) I'm glad having lived past twenty four and willing to take any blessing coming after. "I'd even conjecture there's a sexual selection effect going on in the «live hard die young» people, like rock stars, athletes, etc." I hope you're aware of survivor's bias here. Assume a lot more of those to be weeded out. Also, the stars made it not only because they were risk inclined but also because they they have that value they were recognized for. I find the gradual improvement that one may gain having a bit of time to be a very useful edge over the young and inexperienced, in the game of life. Especially for a male (that is not that restricted by an inherent fertility age limit), this edge fits perfectly in the reproductive selection window you mention. ¹ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert%27s_syndrome#Cardiovascular_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert%27s_syndrome#Cardiovas...
- chubot 6y ago
  Sure, but the point is there would have to be a Gilbert-like mechanism for every subsystem of the body. And Gilbert isn't "free" -- it comes at cost. The body is a machine, and engineering is full of tradeoffs. People with high abilities in one area (geniuses) often have low abilities in others. Optimizing some protein for your heart isn't neutral for the rest of your body, etc. The point about the stars is that evolution has "determined" that it can be optimal to take a ton of risks and die early than to live safely for 200 years (in some cases, of course evolution favors diversity too, which is why you see centenarians). If you could get reward without risk, then it wouldn't work that way -- the "stars" would live forever creating great music and not drink themselves to death. But life is full of tradeoffs and reward involves risk.
chongli 6y ago
evolution only "cares" about you to the point where you bear children and raise them Humans are highly social beings that naturally live in large kin groups. Knowledge and culture form a huge part of our survival strategy. Who among us have the most knowledge and experience to pass on? Elders. Take a look at the role of elders in traditional hunter/gatherer cultures. Huge importance. Is it not implausible that natural selection would favour increased life expectancy so that elders can maintain and transmit the group's body of knowledge?
- chubot 6y ago
  Of course, that's what "raise" means. Grandmothers also raise their grandchildren -- google "grandmother effect" or "grandmother hypothesis". I'm more talking about people who want to raise life expectancy from 100 to 200, not go from 70 to 100 (not sure where the original article fell on this). 70 to 100 is clearly possible and we've already gotten a long way there in the 20th century (antibiotics, etc.) The "problem" now seems to be that not everyone actually cares if they live that long... i.e. there are plenty of people who don't want to live to 100, and might not even if they maintained the health of a 60 or 70 year old.
psychoslave 6y ago
>Since evolution only "cares" about you to the point where you bear children and raise them, what are the chances that it engineered ALL those systems to last FOREVER? This sentence turn things into such an anthropomorphic way, to the point that the concept of evolution en engineering don't make sense anymore. In the (scientific) evolution theories, evolution doesn't "engineer" life. It shapes life forms by environment constraints alone. And these constraints are in no appearing way optimized for fostering life, which appear more like an accidental byproduct. No conceptual framework nor any concern for conscious parsimony of implementation or sense of elegance are underlying evolution forces. Indefinite youthfulness span would sure seems impressive. But it is nothing compared to other challenges that should be overcome to attain an exceptional life span: an unswerving immune system, not being killed by any domestic accident, human social violence or natural catastrophe, and not suicide yourself over psychological disorders.
- waltpad 6y ago
  I don't understand your first argument. My feeling is that you got side-tracked by the use of the word "engineer" because it shouldn't be used in its literal meaning, but was it the intent of GP? There are scientific papers, BTW, which engineer solutions by evolutionary algorithms. Is that evolution or engineering? Clearly there's an engineering setup, made of all the constraints you speak about for the evolution process to take place, and that evolution process is also defined artificially, yet just like the real stuff, it follows a set of rules, so where's the divide? Why nature couldn't be engineering life with evolution, but humans could? Your last point OTOH is quite relevant.

by chubot 6y ago

restalis 6y ago

"Every one of those systems can fail and leave you dead. Since evolution only «cares» about you to the point where you bear children and raise them, what are the chances that it engineered ALL those systems to last FOREVER?" Evolution works in small steps, over long periods of time (given the humans slow grow up process). Mutations in any of those systems may increase or lower the chances of such failure. Evolution takes care of both, albeit by a small margin. Currently, cause of death number one worldwide is the ischemic heart disease¹ (i.e. the famous "coronary"). Now guess what, there are genetic mutations that work on this out there already, one of them being the Gilbert's syndrome². Yes, forever is unattainable, but (humanity scale speaking) I'm glad having lived past twenty four and willing to take any blessing coming after. "I'd even conjecture there's a sexual selection effect going on in the «live hard die young» people, like rock stars, athletes, etc." I hope you're aware of survivor's bias here. Assume a lot more of those to be weeded out. Also, the stars made it not only because they were risk inclined but also because they they have that value they were recognized for. I find the gradual improvement that one may gain having a bit of time to be a very useful edge over the young and inexperienced, in the game of life. Especially for a male (that is not that restricted by an inherent fertility age limit), this edge fits perfectly in the reproductive selection window you mention. ¹ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-... ² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert%27s_syndrome#Cardiovascular_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert%27s_syndrome#Cardiovas...

chubot 6y ago
Sure, but the point is there would have to be a Gilbert-like mechanism for every subsystem of the body. And Gilbert isn't "free" -- it comes at cost. The body is a machine, and engineering is full of tradeoffs. People with high abilities in one area (geniuses) often have low abilities in others. Optimizing some protein for your heart isn't neutral for the rest of your body, etc. The point about the stars is that evolution has "determined" that it can be optimal to take a ton of risks and die early than to live safely for 200 years (in some cases, of course evolution favors diversity too, which is why you see centenarians). If you could get reward without risk, then it wouldn't work that way -- the "stars" would live forever creating great music and not drink themselves to death. But life is full of tradeoffs and reward involves risk.

chongli 6y ago

evolution only "cares" about you to the point where you bear children and raise them Humans are highly social beings that naturally live in large kin groups. Knowledge and culture form a huge part of our survival strategy. Who among us have the most knowledge and experience to pass on? Elders. Take a look at the role of elders in traditional hunter/gatherer cultures. Huge importance. Is it not implausible that natural selection would favour increased life expectancy so that elders can maintain and transmit the group's body of knowledge?

chubot 6y ago
Of course, that's what "raise" means. Grandmothers also raise their grandchildren -- google "grandmother effect" or "grandmother hypothesis". I'm more talking about people who want to raise life expectancy from 100 to 200, not go from 70 to 100 (not sure where the original article fell on this). 70 to 100 is clearly possible and we've already gotten a long way there in the 20th century (antibiotics, etc.) The "problem" now seems to be that not everyone actually cares if they live that long... i.e. there are plenty of people who don't want to live to 100, and might not even if they maintained the health of a 60 or 70 year old.

psychoslave 6y ago

>Since evolution only "cares" about you to the point where you bear children and raise them, what are the chances that it engineered ALL those systems to last FOREVER? This sentence turn things into such an anthropomorphic way, to the point that the concept of evolution en engineering don't make sense anymore. In the (scientific) evolution theories, evolution doesn't "engineer" life. It shapes life forms by environment constraints alone. And these constraints are in no appearing way optimized for fostering life, which appear more like an accidental byproduct. No conceptual framework nor any concern for conscious parsimony of implementation or sense of elegance are underlying evolution forces. Indefinite youthfulness span would sure seems impressive. But it is nothing compared to other challenges that should be overcome to attain an exceptional life span: an unswerving immune system, not being killed by any domestic accident, human social violence or natural catastrophe, and not suicide yourself over psychological disorders.

waltpad 6y ago
I don't understand your first argument. My feeling is that you got side-tracked by the use of the word "engineer" because it shouldn't be used in its literal meaning, but was it the intent of GP? There are scientific papers, BTW, which engineer solutions by evolutionary algorithms. Is that evolution or engineering? Clearly there's an engineering setup, made of all the constraints you speak about for the evolution process to take place, and that evolution process is also defined artificially, yet just like the real stuff, it follows a set of rules, so where's the divide? Why nature couldn't be engineering life with evolution, but humans could? Your last point OTOH is quite relevant.