5 ms·
This is essentially creating an auto-immune disease in old age - by having the body target it's own cells. It's also not clear how the researchers prevented th
by q1w2 5y ago
This is essentially creating an auto-immune disease in old age - by having the body target it's own cells. It's also not clear how the researchers prevented the immune cells from dying in the Thymus (who's function is specifically to prevent immune cells from being coded to attack cells in the body - it's like a UAT environment).
...but the bigger question would be - If this protein encoded a protein that identified cells which should always be eliminated in old age; why hasn't any mammal evolved to start destroying them?
It's more likely that there is some trade-off which we have not discovered yet.
- Glyptodon 5y agoThere's doesn't have to be a major (from our perspective) trade-off if historically the benefit under selection was very marginal, probably somewhat more so both because of menopause and historical lifespans often being shorter.
- hoseja 5y agoWhat? Immune cells attack the body all the time, how do you think you're not all cancer. It's only a disease when they attack useful cells too much.
- ahD5zae7 5y ago> why hasn't any mammal evolved to start destroying them? I think that evolution selects mostly for reproduction and not longevity. You don't have to live very long to have many kids (in like caveman / hunter-gatherer type of context as this is where evolution is basically), you just need to have great genetics. I guess sticking around for a few years after to protect the kids and provide for them is a bonus, but that part may be handled by the tribe too. But there's not much to be gained (from evolutionary point of view) from an individual living up to a 100 years or so.
- haxiomic 5y agoI think there’s plenty of room for life extension Evolution doesn’t optimise for length of life, just propagation. A number of species have evolved to have very short life cycles because that enabled greater propagation. Presumably shorter lives generally confer greater adaptability as it increases the opportunity for evolutionary change
- labster 5y agoEvolution can optimize for longer lifespans if it makes propagation more favorable. It happened in humans — grandparents make us more successful. Except when they run our governments.
- FredPret 5y agoSome of our greatest leaders have been very old. Good and old are unrelated concepts
- labster 5y agoGreat and good are also unrelated concepts. Google is a great company, but they decided “don’t be evil” is unnecessary for greatness.
- satisfaction 5y agoWe need to evolve past the point where we expect to rely on government.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoBack to anarchy?
- Johnythree 5y agoA benevolent Government is just Society. Nothing wrong with society.
- Consultant32452 5y agoEvolution does optimize longevity in at least one way. Chromosomes have a limited number of telomeres, each time the cell divides the telomeres become shorter. If your cell runs out of telomeres it can't divide anymore. This is one of the primary mechanisms the body balances repair against cancer risk. Current max of human life is about 120. If you don't "solve" the telomere problem you are not going to extend life past 120, though you may have more people live that long and may improve quality of life in later years. Our species has a good balance that lets us live well past reproduction age, presumably because there is evolutionary pressure (benefit) to having elderly people around to pass on knowledge, help raise grandchildren, etc. You can do things that extend the telomeres, but that makes cells more likely to reproduce out of control (cancer). This is a very hard "problem" to solve because cell final death is so important in preventing cancer. We are not even close to solving this, it would require revolutionary biological understanding.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- xwdv 5y agoNatural selection up to this point has prioritized for a good time, not a long time.
- strken 5y agoWhy would surviving longer in old age be adaptive? The trade-off could be as simple as "you're mostly infertile, any children you do have will have higher rates of genetic disease, and being healthier means you're alive and active enough to compete with your kids and grandkids for food and mates".
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago"It's more likely that there is some trade-off which we have not discovered yet." Clearly some tradeoffs are less relevant today than they were to a tribe of cavemen. Even if grandpa is in great shape, he will have a hard time hunting thay wooley mamoth, and having him around too long will be too many mouths to feed. Also it's hypothetically possible to give everyone a ripped physique without gym memberships, downside of this would be increased protein consumption.