7 ms·

Having no inflammation at all is a very bad thing. Too much inflammation is also a very bad thing. Hypothetically, there's an optimal level of inflammatory re

Having no inflammation at all is a very bad thing. Too much inflammation is also a very bad thing. Hypothetically, there's an optimal level of inflammatory response. Evolution doesn't necessarily guarantee that, at least when it comes to a single mouse. An individual organism surviving for the longest amount of time is not necessarily optimal at the species level. It could be that mice (for instance) have a bit too high of an IL-11 response, but there's either no evolutionary pressure against it or there's some species-level value to it. Above all, since only one interleukin was targeted in the research, we can't assume that all inflammation is bad and that no inflammation is ideal. On a related note, I wonder if there's anything commercially available that can suppress IL-11. Currently, I'm taking phycocyanin extracted from spirulina, which is supposed to suppress COX-2 and IL-17, but I don't see any research confirming whether it has an effect on IL-11. Would be cool if I've unwittingly begun extending my lifespan. :D

goda90 2y ago
> An individual organism surviving for the longest amount of time is not necessarily optimal at the species level. Though it can be argued that among social, intelligent creatures, living grandparents holds value for the species. Humans and orcas both seem to benefit from them in many ways.
- wubrr 2y ago
  I would imagine that if humans were immortal, the centralization of wealth and power under a few families would be even more extreme. Which is probably not good for the vast majority of humans.
  - olalonde 2y ago
    Even if you were right, I'd still chose that society over death. I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth).
    - wubrr 2y ago
      I mean, it's pretty hard to predict what such a society would look like, but it's plausible you'd just be a slave from birth until death (because poor slaves don't get the immortality pill). > I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth). The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. And arguably, it dissipates because it gets decentralized as it gets split up between heirs as it passed down to future generations which are typically less ambitious and focused on maintaining that power and wealth. Imagine if Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Mao, Rothschild, Rockerfeller, all of the kings/royals/despots/dictators were immortal and still running the world - I don't think most people would want to live in that world.
      - olalonde 2y ago
        > The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. > I don't think most people would want to live in that world. I would, if the other option was death. Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Regimes survive despite the death of their rulers and fall while their rulers are still alive.
        wubrr 2y ago
        > I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. I'm talking about predictors of wealth for a new person. The age and income are both zero. If you have their income - you probably have their wealth already as well - nothing to predict. And for the record, coming from wealth is the strongest predictor of future wealth. [0][1] > I would, if the other option was death. But you have no choice/option in my hypothetical scenario - you're born a slave and you die... > Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Really.... ? Why? All of the people I mentioned, maintained and grew their wealth/power their entire life up until their death. Having power/wealth is just a huge advantage if you're trying to gain/maintain power/wealth. [0] https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-study-wealth-not-ability-the-biggest-predictor-of-future-success https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-stu... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-its-better-to-be-born-rich-than-smart.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-...
  - lawlessone 2y ago
    We'd certainly need to change our social system lot.
  - netcraft 2y ago
    altered carbon is a great show that deals with this
  - hagbard_c 2y ago
    If they were immortal they'd soon find a way to move beyond this planet, then beyond this solar system. Once that is accomplished there is a whole universe to colonise so I assume that is what would happen. It would be the only way really since the planet would otherwise quickly fill up and 'immortality' would end up a pipe dream due to endless conflict over land and sustenance.
    - jvanderbot 2y ago
      Ah yes, the "vampire spaceship" season of humanity.
    - AlchemistCamp 2y ago
      That's far from guaranteed. With an average fertility rate of 1, which is higher than that of many countries including where I live, even complete immortality would lead to an asymptotic population. Since some people will still inevitably die in accidents even if aging is solved, a fertility rate of 1 would be a declining population even with unlimited lifespans.
    - wubrr 2y ago
      You're assuming everyone gets the immortality and is de facto benevolent. If you actually look at how the super rich and powerful have acted historically - its much more likely that the few richest/most powerful people would just take control of the earth, reserve immortality for themselves, and keep everyone else as a mortal slave.
  - indoordin0saur 2y ago
    I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. Another thought I had was that revolutions over inequality almost always happen when there's a large youthful population. The old just don't have the energy or the future-focused outlook for big change. Inequality might be less stable if all adults had the health of their youth.
    - wubrr 2y ago
      > I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. That's a very specific scenario, where everything happens to be going great for you. Do you honestly believe wealth inequality has no negative consequences for those at the bottom?
      - indoordin0saur 2y ago
        No, I agree that extreme wealth inequality is not desirable. But the question I'm trying to get at is if we can have medicine that will make people live dramatically healthier lives isn't it worth it even if some billionaires get to hold onto their wealth a little longer? "But if we cure aging won't that mean that the ultra-rich will never go away??" That's what these conversations always seem to devolve into and it seems to miss the bigger picture.
        wubrr 2y ago
        I think it will be worth it, but we can't just assume that such a medicine will be available for everyone, or ignore the effects it will have on society. Many medicines and treatments we have today are already basically available only to the wealthy. Many prominent billionaires are on record spreading overpopulation FUD and anti-natalism, while having multiple children themselves. In theory - I agree that having some kind of anti-aging treatment that is available for everyone would be awesome, but in practice it could end up as immortality for the very few, while making the vast majority worse off.
  - michaelteter 2y ago
    How long does it take for evolution to resolve that presumably long-term unintentional negative outcome?
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Though it can be argued that among social, intelligent creatures, living grandparents holds value for the species. This is taken to an extreme in Larry Niven's "known space" setting. There's a bunch of interesting stuff I won't mention because spoilers, but imagine a very-humanoid race where the adults are not intelligent, but later they lose the ability to reproduce and gain hyper-intelligence, strength, and a ruthless drive to protect and advance their descendants.
- robwwilliams 2y ago
  Selection only cares about reproductive fitness of individuals. There is some weak evidence that grandparents can improve their reproductive fitness by supporting the fitness if their progeny. Any species level effects are not important players, although as our technological competence grows, this is likely to change.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Humans and orcas both seem to benefit from them in many ways. For a second, I thought you wrote "humans and orcs..." I don't think orcs really value grandparents that much, but who knows: Tolkein might have completely maligned them as mindless monsters when they were in fact just a fast-growing pre-industrial civilization.
  - officeplant 2y ago
    Real Orks know as long as you aren't painting yourself red you'll age slower, live longer, but not orkier.
darby_nine 2y ago
> Hypothetically, there's an optimal level of inflammatory response. Surely this is directly dependent on the context of the organism.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
r0ze-at-hn 2y ago
A way to look at this is that death is an evolutionary advantage for the species. Vertebrates have a PVN that control the HPA-Axis. As anything that contributes to the HPA-Axis such as pain, stress, or inflamation increases, the PVN shrinks and it fairly rapidly (evolutionary wise) behaves like a kill switch to the brain. Some pre-Vertebrates can effectively live forever and the mammals that live the longest have different hpa-axis loops. What is wild to realize is that there was probably a creature at some point that wouldn't die from pain until that was connected to this loop.

goda90 2y ago

> An individual organism surviving for the longest amount of time is not necessarily optimal at the species level. Though it can be argued that among social, intelligent creatures, living grandparents holds value for the species. Humans and orcas both seem to benefit from them in many ways.

wubrr 2y ago
I would imagine that if humans were immortal, the centralization of wealth and power under a few families would be even more extreme. Which is probably not good for the vast majority of humans.
- olalonde 2y ago
  Even if you were right, I'd still chose that society over death. I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth).
  - wubrr 2y ago
    I mean, it's pretty hard to predict what such a society would look like, but it's plausible you'd just be a slave from birth until death (because poor slaves don't get the immortality pill). > I am not convinced though, wealth seems to dissipate over long periods (e.g. most billionaires today did not inherit their wealth). The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. And arguably, it dissipates because it gets decentralized as it gets split up between heirs as it passed down to future generations which are typically less ambitious and focused on maintaining that power and wealth. Imagine if Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Mao, Rothschild, Rockerfeller, all of the kings/royals/despots/dictators were immortal and still running the world - I don't think most people would want to live in that world.
    - olalonde 2y ago
      > The single most reliable predictor of wealth BY FAR is being born into wealth. I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. > I don't think most people would want to live in that world. I would, if the other option was death. Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Regimes survive despite the death of their rulers and fall while their rulers are still alive.
      - wubrr 2y ago
        > I highly doubt that. I would guess that income and age would be much better predictors for example. I'm talking about predictors of wealth for a new person. The age and income are both zero. If you have their income - you probably have their wealth already as well - nothing to predict. And for the record, coming from wealth is the strongest predictor of future wealth. [0][1] > I would, if the other option was death. But you have no choice/option in my hypothetical scenario - you're born a slave and you die... > Regardless, I doubt any of them would still rule the world had they not died of old age. Really.... ? Why? All of the people I mentioned, maintained and grew their wealth/power their entire life up until their death. Having power/wealth is just a huge advantage if you're trying to gain/maintain power/wealth. [0] https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-study-wealth-not-ability-the-biggest-predictor-of-future-success https://www.ctpublic.org/education/2019-05-15/georgetown-stu... [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-its-better-to-be-born-rich-than-smart.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/study-to-succeed-in-america-...
- lawlessone 2y ago
  We'd certainly need to change our social system lot.
- netcraft 2y ago
  altered carbon is a great show that deals with this
- hagbard_c 2y ago
  If they were immortal they'd soon find a way to move beyond this planet, then beyond this solar system. Once that is accomplished there is a whole universe to colonise so I assume that is what would happen. It would be the only way really since the planet would otherwise quickly fill up and 'immortality' would end up a pipe dream due to endless conflict over land and sustenance.
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    Ah yes, the "vampire spaceship" season of humanity.
  - AlchemistCamp 2y ago
    That's far from guaranteed. With an average fertility rate of 1, which is higher than that of many countries including where I live, even complete immortality would lead to an asymptotic population. Since some people will still inevitably die in accidents even if aging is solved, a fertility rate of 1 would be a declining population even with unlimited lifespans.
  - wubrr 2y ago
    You're assuming everyone gets the immortality and is de facto benevolent. If you actually look at how the super rich and powerful have acted historically - its much more likely that the few richest/most powerful people would just take control of the earth, reserve immortality for themselves, and keep everyone else as a mortal slave.
- indoordin0saur 2y ago
  I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. Another thought I had was that revolutions over inequality almost always happen when there's a large youthful population. The old just don't have the energy or the future-focused outlook for big change. Inequality might be less stable if all adults had the health of their youth.
  - wubrr 2y ago
    > I'd rather have the healthy and energy of a 25 year old and live in a world where there are people far richer than me than be a frail 80 year old where at least I know there aren't any trillionaires. That's a very specific scenario, where everything happens to be going great for you. Do you honestly believe wealth inequality has no negative consequences for those at the bottom?
    - indoordin0saur 2y ago
      No, I agree that extreme wealth inequality is not desirable. But the question I'm trying to get at is if we can have medicine that will make people live dramatically healthier lives isn't it worth it even if some billionaires get to hold onto their wealth a little longer? "But if we cure aging won't that mean that the ultra-rich will never go away??" That's what these conversations always seem to devolve into and it seems to miss the bigger picture.
      - wubrr 2y ago
        I think it will be worth it, but we can't just assume that such a medicine will be available for everyone, or ignore the effects it will have on society. Many medicines and treatments we have today are already basically available only to the wealthy. Many prominent billionaires are on record spreading overpopulation FUD and anti-natalism, while having multiple children themselves. In theory - I agree that having some kind of anti-aging treatment that is available for everyone would be awesome, but in practice it could end up as immortality for the very few, while making the vast majority worse off.
- michaelteter 2y ago
  How long does it take for evolution to resolve that presumably long-term unintentional negative outcome?
Terr_ 2y ago
> Though it can be argued that among social, intelligent creatures, living grandparents holds value for the species. This is taken to an extreme in Larry Niven's "known space" setting. There's a bunch of interesting stuff I won't mention because spoilers, but imagine a very-humanoid race where the adults are not intelligent, but later they lose the ability to reproduce and gain hyper-intelligence, strength, and a ruthless drive to protect and advance their descendants.
robwwilliams 2y ago
Selection only cares about reproductive fitness of individuals. There is some weak evidence that grandparents can improve their reproductive fitness by supporting the fitness if their progeny. Any species level effects are not important players, although as our technological competence grows, this is likely to change.
shiroiushi 2y ago
>Humans and orcas both seem to benefit from them in many ways. For a second, I thought you wrote "humans and orcs..." I don't think orcs really value grandparents that much, but who knows: Tolkein might have completely maligned them as mindless monsters when they were in fact just a fast-growing pre-industrial civilization.
- officeplant 2y ago
  Real Orks know as long as you aren't painting yourself red you'll age slower, live longer, but not orkier.

darby_nine 2y ago

> Hypothetically, there's an optimal level of inflammatory response. Surely this is directly dependent on the context of the organism.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

r0ze-at-hn 2y ago

A way to look at this is that death is an evolutionary advantage for the species. Vertebrates have a PVN that control the HPA-Axis. As anything that contributes to the HPA-Axis such as pain, stress, or inflamation increases, the PVN shrinks and it fairly rapidly (evolutionary wise) behaves like a kill switch to the brain. Some pre-Vertebrates can effectively live forever and the mammals that live the longest have different hpa-axis loops. What is wild to realize is that there was probably a creature at some point that wouldn't die from pain until that was connected to this loop.