6 ms·

I follow the longevity space a bit and I believe the implication of nucleosomes in the aging process is a new idea? Wonder why nucleosomes become less frequent

I follow the longevity space a bit and I believe the implication of nucleosomes in the aging process is a new idea? Wonder why nucleosomes become less frequent as we age ... I know cancer mitigation can sometimes be the reason for these kinds of dimunitions.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
All this research will be wasted only to learn we age and die as it's the best tradeoff for our performance prior to death. That is, unless we're content being a collection of dysfunctional, amorphous tumors and call this a "life", or be passive and unmoving, and do and achieve nothing, but do it over centuries.
- justinclift 4y ago
  So, you're saying don't solve any of these problems because it's all too hard?
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    No, I didn't say that. I said "you're not trying to solve a problem, you're trying introduce problems into a working solution". I see I got downvoted up there, as if I'll steal your life by openly sharing a valid opinion. Humans are such a sorry species sometimes.
    - RivieraKid 4y ago
      I don't consider it a working solution. To me, it's a bug.
      - ChatGTP 4y ago
        I guess that’s just an opinion? I’ve spent time with friends and relatives who were 80+, many of whom told me them were tired of life and ready for “something new”, they had good lives but had enough. Sure if they had younger bodies they might feel differently but most were quite able bodied and just felt it was time. Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ?
        RivieraKid 4y ago
        > they had good lives but had enough Yes, many people don't enjoy life, especially when their health deteriorates. I'm saying that to me, the fact that your health gradually gets worse until you die is a bug. > Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ? Nah, I don't think so.
        CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        The major religions all try to answer the question of death. Singularitarianism answers it by pointing to longevity research and saying death won't happen, that death is a bug (despite being omnipresent in biological nature and in accordance with entropy), and that anyone who doesn't adhere to this belief is an evil deathist.
        jiminymcmoogley 4y ago
        Were they as able bodied as they were aged 20-25 though? If 80 years is the cutoff at which we get bored with staying alive, would you rather spend those 80 years in a "biologically" 20-year-old body then make the conscious choice for "something new" or gradually deteriorate for about half of those 80 years then die without the choice not to?
    - justinclift 4y ago
      What's the "working solution" you're talking about?
      - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
        Children. And death. You can't have the former without the latter indefinitely. And you need the former for progress to happen. Old people aren't merely a less healthy version of young people. They're also people who have settled mentally and now they DEPEND on the environment staying the way they're familiar with it. They will try their best to prevent change. This means children can't thrive & take the next step. Notice I've not mentioned yet also that we can't have infinite people on that planet. But we can't, anyway.
        justinclift 4y ago
        Ugh. That's not really a solution, and you're generalising way too much about old people being stuck in their ways. While some definitely are, they're not all like that. Condemning everyone to death, even the not-stuck-in-the-mud old people sounds pretty abhorrent, or maybe "tragic" might be the better word. > Notice I've not mentioned yet also that we can't have infinite people on that planet. Well, fortunately there's more than a single planet in this universe. How feasible it becomes to live on planets-other-than-this-one over time is clearly not something we can say with any certainty at the moment though. Hopefully that works out to be possible (in some good way), otherwise we're stuck with what you're suggesting. Which would suck. :(
        BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
        This reads kinda like "these facts are getting in the way of blind hope." Be extremely suspect of patterns of the kind "we'll do X now, which will work when we invent Y far in the future". Say, electric cars can use clean energy now, so they'll be clean when we move to mostly clean energy in the future. OK, but today they indirectly run on oil, gas & coal. Or "we'll work on immortality now, which will be fine when we spread over the galaxy in the future". These things need to co-happen at the same time, instead of dooming us all to a fruitless endeavor only to then realize the second critical part of the equation may never happen the way we thought it would. Did you know your neurons can't go through mitosis? You can't regenerate a damaged brain. And it does get damaged in time, nothing can fix that. When you use something you wear it down, it deals with harsh environment that the organism tries to prevent as much as possible, but something's gotta give eventually. When I said people settle mentally I didn't mean it CULTURALLY. I meant it BIOLOGICALLY. In ignorance one can claim that dead neurons may just get better and maybe we'll find ways to make them regenerate, but that's because they're clueless, so every implausible scenario seems equally likely to them as what's plausible. In theory, a "life" may be possible to factor so it's infinitely flexible in infinite time. Whatever that life is, it won't be human at all. It won't be you, or anyone your know. We're built the way we're built and you can't change this without losing yourself in the process. We have an 80 year old president in the US, Trump was also old, Putin is old, Xi is old, everyone is going incredibly old up there among the ruling elite, and may they be blessed with great health and all, but even when healthy, their decisions are firmly planted into the 20th century, you can't help that. And this matters. It's holding us back and in some cases threatening world peace and safety. And by the way! The reason our biology makes us SETTLE DOWN in our concepts, knowledge, behavior, is because the alternative IS EVEN WORSE, and it is degradation, mental illness, loss of memory and so on. This is not about some problem with our health. It's a problem of entropy and it includes also machine models, not just human brain: https://www.nannyml.com/blog/91-of-ml-perfomance-degrade-in-time https://www.nannyml.com/blog/91-of-ml-perfomance-degrade-in-... We're all doomed to "either die a hero, or live long enough to see ourselves become the villain". I prefer to die a hero, and let other heroes grow in my place. How about you?
- yellow_postit 4y ago
  Why would this be unique to this point in time versus others say, pre antibiotics? To assume we’ve reached the upper limit of longevity and medicine is a bold claim.
- throway_009988 4y ago
  Unlikely. Life is optimized for species evolution/survival. From a logical perspective, individuals should be optimized for transmitting beneficial traits to the next generation and, after this, it's better if they don't stick around to fight for resources - nature Planned Obsolescence.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    Not always so, see "Grandmother effect". It's highly beneficial to keep around older members that can 1) work for their offspring or 2) provide important guidance and knowledge transfer.
    - throway_009988 4y ago
      That could be the partial exception that proves the rule (partial because there seems to be no "great(N+1) grandmother effect" as great grandmothers would start to compete with grandmothers, with low to none returns to human species). Are there other examples, besides high level primates? Moreover, that precise example hints that it shouldn't be so difficult to tweak the human substrate to improve the lifespan since Nature was able to do it in such a short time.
- tjpnz 4y ago
  The goal is to prevent and possibly reverse aging so you would remain healthy. What you do with those extra years is your business.
- amackera 4y ago
  Well, if that's what the research shows than the effort wasn't "wasted". Don't confuse your opinions with facts.
- sholladay 4y ago
  Human lifespan and healthspan have increased notably in recent centuries. I also expect there to be tradeoffs, as there so often are in life. Perhaps, though, we will be able to trade those costs for other costs that we prefer or can more easily afford.
RivieraKid 4y ago
What's the current status of longevity research? Do we know what causes aging and what allows some animals to love much longer than orders?
- rybosworld 4y ago
  I think the simplest answer is that aging is an accumulation of dna errors and your body reaches a point where it doesn't know what the "correct" dna was. Some species have adapted better error correction.
  - fbn79 4y ago
    So if we backup our DNA at 20, we can use CRISPR at 50 to restore it and return young?
    - thrwwy5685865 4y ago
      This is very hard to do. How do you get CRISPR to every cell in the body without incidentally killing you?
      - p1esk 4y ago
        Ironic that you're worried about doing something that can "incidentally" kill you - to prevent something that will definitely kill you.
        mr_toad 4y ago
        Depends on how old you are. If you’re 50 and contemplating a procedure that could make you 20 but might kill you, you’d probably defer. Maybe when you’re 70 or 90 you might see things differently.
        p1esk 4y ago
        If I'm 50 I would probably wait 10-20 years until the procedure becomes more reliable, but if I'm 70 I'd probably go for it even with 50/50 chance.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago

All this research will be wasted only to learn we age and die as it's the best tradeoff for our performance prior to death. That is, unless we're content being a collection of dysfunctional, amorphous tumors and call this a "life", or be passive and unmoving, and do and achieve nothing, but do it over centuries.

justinclift 4y ago
So, you're saying don't solve any of these problems because it's all too hard?
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  No, I didn't say that. I said "you're not trying to solve a problem, you're trying introduce problems into a working solution". I see I got downvoted up there, as if I'll steal your life by openly sharing a valid opinion. Humans are such a sorry species sometimes.
  - RivieraKid 4y ago
    I don't consider it a working solution. To me, it's a bug.
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      I guess that’s just an opinion? I’ve spent time with friends and relatives who were 80+, many of whom told me them were tired of life and ready for “something new”, they had good lives but had enough. Sure if they had younger bodies they might feel differently but most were quite able bodied and just felt it was time. Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ?
      - RivieraKid 4y ago
        > they had good lives but had enough Yes, many people don't enjoy life, especially when their health deteriorates. I'm saying that to me, the fact that your health gradually gets worse until you die is a bug. > Perhaps you should be careful what you wish for ? Nah, I don't think so.
      - CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        The major religions all try to answer the question of death. Singularitarianism answers it by pointing to longevity research and saying death won't happen, that death is a bug (despite being omnipresent in biological nature and in accordance with entropy), and that anyone who doesn't adhere to this belief is an evil deathist.
      - jiminymcmoogley 4y ago
        Were they as able bodied as they were aged 20-25 though? If 80 years is the cutoff at which we get bored with staying alive, would you rather spend those 80 years in a "biologically" 20-year-old body then make the conscious choice for "something new" or gradually deteriorate for about half of those 80 years then die without the choice not to?
  - justinclift 4y ago
    What's the "working solution" you're talking about?
    - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
      Children. And death. You can't have the former without the latter indefinitely. And you need the former for progress to happen. Old people aren't merely a less healthy version of young people. They're also people who have settled mentally and now they DEPEND on the environment staying the way they're familiar with it. They will try their best to prevent change. This means children can't thrive & take the next step. Notice I've not mentioned yet also that we can't have infinite people on that planet. But we can't, anyway.
      - justinclift 4y ago
        Ugh. That's not really a solution, and you're generalising way too much about old people being stuck in their ways. While some definitely are, they're not all like that. Condemning everyone to death, even the not-stuck-in-the-mud old people sounds pretty abhorrent, or maybe "tragic" might be the better word. > Notice I've not mentioned yet also that we can't have infinite people on that planet. Well, fortunately there's more than a single planet in this universe. How feasible it becomes to live on planets-other-than-this-one over time is clearly not something we can say with any certainty at the moment though. Hopefully that works out to be possible (in some good way), otherwise we're stuck with what you're suggesting. Which would suck. :(
        BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
        This reads kinda like "these facts are getting in the way of blind hope." Be extremely suspect of patterns of the kind "we'll do X now, which will work when we invent Y far in the future". Say, electric cars can use clean energy now, so they'll be clean when we move to mostly clean energy in the future. OK, but today they indirectly run on oil, gas & coal. Or "we'll work on immortality now, which will be fine when we spread over the galaxy in the future". These things need to co-happen at the same time, instead of dooming us all to a fruitless endeavor only to then realize the second critical part of the equation may never happen the way we thought it would. Did you know your neurons can't go through mitosis? You can't regenerate a damaged brain. And it does get damaged in time, nothing can fix that. When you use something you wear it down, it deals with harsh environment that the organism tries to prevent as much as possible, but something's gotta give eventually. When I said people settle mentally I didn't mean it CULTURALLY. I meant it BIOLOGICALLY. In ignorance one can claim that dead neurons may just get better and maybe we'll find ways to make them regenerate, but that's because they're clueless, so every implausible scenario seems equally likely to them as what's plausible. In theory, a "life" may be possible to factor so it's infinitely flexible in infinite time. Whatever that life is, it won't be human at all. It won't be you, or anyone your know. We're built the way we're built and you can't change this without losing yourself in the process. We have an 80 year old president in the US, Trump was also old, Putin is old, Xi is old, everyone is going incredibly old up there among the ruling elite, and may they be blessed with great health and all, but even when healthy, their decisions are firmly planted into the 20th century, you can't help that. And this matters. It's holding us back and in some cases threatening world peace and safety. And by the way! The reason our biology makes us SETTLE DOWN in our concepts, knowledge, behavior, is because the alternative IS EVEN WORSE, and it is degradation, mental illness, loss of memory and so on. This is not about some problem with our health. It's a problem of entropy and it includes also machine models, not just human brain: https://www.nannyml.com/blog/91-of-ml-perfomance-degrade-in-time https://www.nannyml.com/blog/91-of-ml-perfomance-degrade-in-... We're all doomed to "either die a hero, or live long enough to see ourselves become the villain". I prefer to die a hero, and let other heroes grow in my place. How about you?
yellow_postit 4y ago
Why would this be unique to this point in time versus others say, pre antibiotics? To assume we’ve reached the upper limit of longevity and medicine is a bold claim.
throway_009988 4y ago
Unlikely. Life is optimized for species evolution/survival. From a logical perspective, individuals should be optimized for transmitting beneficial traits to the next generation and, after this, it's better if they don't stick around to fight for resources - nature Planned Obsolescence.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Not always so, see "Grandmother effect". It's highly beneficial to keep around older members that can 1) work for their offspring or 2) provide important guidance and knowledge transfer.
  - throway_009988 4y ago
    That could be the partial exception that proves the rule (partial because there seems to be no "great(N+1) grandmother effect" as great grandmothers would start to compete with grandmothers, with low to none returns to human species). Are there other examples, besides high level primates? Moreover, that precise example hints that it shouldn't be so difficult to tweak the human substrate to improve the lifespan since Nature was able to do it in such a short time.
tjpnz 4y ago
The goal is to prevent and possibly reverse aging so you would remain healthy. What you do with those extra years is your business.
amackera 4y ago
Well, if that's what the research shows than the effort wasn't "wasted". Don't confuse your opinions with facts.
sholladay 4y ago
Human lifespan and healthspan have increased notably in recent centuries. I also expect there to be tradeoffs, as there so often are in life. Perhaps, though, we will be able to trade those costs for other costs that we prefer or can more easily afford.

RivieraKid 4y ago

What's the current status of longevity research? Do we know what causes aging and what allows some animals to love much longer than orders?

rybosworld 4y ago
I think the simplest answer is that aging is an accumulation of dna errors and your body reaches a point where it doesn't know what the "correct" dna was. Some species have adapted better error correction.
- fbn79 4y ago
  So if we backup our DNA at 20, we can use CRISPR at 50 to restore it and return young?
  - thrwwy5685865 4y ago
    This is very hard to do. How do you get CRISPR to every cell in the body without incidentally killing you?
    - p1esk 4y ago
      Ironic that you're worried about doing something that can "incidentally" kill you - to prevent something that will definitely kill you.
      - mr_toad 4y ago
        Depends on how old you are. If you’re 50 and contemplating a procedure that could make you 20 but might kill you, you’d probably defer. Maybe when you’re 70 or 90 you might see things differently.
        p1esk 4y ago
        If I'm 50 I would probably wait 10-20 years until the procedure becomes more reliable, but if I'm 70 I'd probably go for it even with 50/50 chance.