The man who wants to beat back aging

[crazy canuck]

I guess that from an evolutionary standpoint, it's not efficient to have older specimens sticking around for too long and competing for resources with the younger ones.

What I meant is that probably not-aging cells always get unstable and fucked up while a series of suiciding cells live shorter but stable existences and on the long run their "species" outlived the "immortal" cells.

Interesting point.  If a species was long lived it likely produces less offspring so as not to overtax available resources.  As a result the species would be less able to adapt to changing conditions.  To be long lived a species would have to be in an environment which is stable over long periods of time.  Something our ancestors did not have.

[viper37]

He doesn't look like a Mummy, so he either stopped aging at some point or he found the grail when he was already old.

He was very young, presumably, a recruit in the Templars.  The Grail did not stop aging, it only slowed it down.  Eventually, he would have died of old age.

[Malthus]

In most species, animals do not live long enough for a significant number to die of old age. What gets them is predation or disease, long before age becomes much of a factor. It is hard to accept that competition from old-aged individuals would prove all that significant.

[Tonitrus]

Any benefit of metformin in mortality from this study will be confounded by weight loss which is a known side effect of the drug. It'd be like publishing a study that shows 45 minutes of physical activity a day and eating less calories than your basal metabolic rate is "anti-aging."

Weight loss...potential anti-aging...why is this wonder drug not more widespread?  

[Eddie Teach]

I've heard heroin is good for weight loss.

[crazy canuck]

In most species, animals do not live long enough for a significant number to die of old age. What gets them is predation or disease, long before age becomes much of a factor. It is hard to accept that competition from old-aged individuals would prove all that significant.

Only if you assume being long lived means that one is frail during much of that life.  The point we were discussing is if a species is both long lived and active.

[Hamilcar]

In most species, animals do not live long enough for a significant number to die of old age. What gets them is predation or disease, long before age becomes much of a factor. It is hard to accept that competition from old-aged individuals would prove all that significant.

Only if you assume being long lived means that one is frail during much of that life.  The point we were discussing is if a species is both long lived and active.

What if frailty with age isn't inevitable, but programmed to gradually get rid of older individuals.

[Malthus]

In most species, animals do not live long enough for a significant number to die of old age. What gets them is predation or disease, long before age becomes much of a factor. It is hard to accept that competition from old-aged individuals would prove all that significant.

Only if you assume being long lived means that one is frail during much of that life.  The point we were discussing is if a species is both long lived and active.

Even if you made (say) an immortal rabbit, that was hale and hearty all its life without the slightest effects from aging - in the actual wild, chance (accident, illness, parasite, meeting a fox, etc.) - or, more probably, some combo - would likely do them in. As is, the longer your rabbit lived, the more likely it would meet with some injury or illness that would slow it down and make it predator-food. A rabbit's life tends to be nasty, brutish and short, even without old age. 

Point being that, in real life, there ought not to be significant evolutionary pressure caused by too-long-lived rabbits. Sure, some truly exceptional rabbits may beat the odds, but they would be unsusual.

[crazy canuck]

In most species, animals do not live long enough for a significant number to die of old age. What gets them is predation or disease, long before age becomes much of a factor. It is hard to accept that competition from old-aged individuals would prove all that significant.

Only if you assume being long lived means that one is frail during much of that life.  The point we were discussing is if a species is both long lived and active.

Even if you made (say) an immortal rabbit, that was hale and hearty all its life without the slightest effects from aging - in the actual wild, chance (accident, illness, parasite, meeting a fox, etc.) - or, more probably, some combo - would likely do them in. As is, the longer your rabbit lived, the more likely it would meet with some injury or illness that would slow it down and make it predator-food. A rabbit's life tends to be nasty, brutish and short, even without old age. 

Point being that, in real life, there ought not to be significant evolutionary pressure caused by too-long-lived rabbits. Sure, some truly exceptional rabbits may beat the odds, but they would be unsusual.

ok but eventually through the evolutionary process species adapt to their environments so that things like illness, accident, parasites etc do not kill off large parts of the population.  And then consider apex predators who will really only die off in large numbers if their prey species doesn't adapt and survive in sufficient numbers. 

[Malthus]

In most species, animals do not live long enough for a significant number to die of old age. What gets them is predation or disease, long before age becomes much of a factor. It is hard to accept that competition from old-aged individuals would prove all that significant.

Only if you assume being long lived means that one is frail during much of that life.  The point we were discussing is if a species is both long lived and active.

Even if you made (say) an immortal rabbit, that was hale and hearty all its life without the slightest effects from aging - in the actual wild, chance (accident, illness, parasite, meeting a fox, etc.) - or, more probably, some combo - would likely do them in. As is, the longer your rabbit lived, the more likely it would meet with some injury or illness that would slow it down and make it predator-food. A rabbit's life tends to be nasty, brutish and short, even without old age. 

Point being that, in real life, there ought not to be significant evolutionary pressure caused by too-long-lived rabbits. Sure, some truly exceptional rabbits may beat the odds, but they would be unsusual.

ok but eventually through the evolutionary process species adapt to their environments so that things like illness, accident, parasites etc do not kill off large parts of the population.  And then consider apex predators who will really only die off in large numbers if their prey species doesn't adapt and survive in sufficient numbers.

On the contrary - the point I'm making is that, in reality, diesase, accidents, parasites and predation kill off just about all members of a species, particularly for a "prey species" such as rabbits in the wild. Old age is a vanishingly rare cause of death, only really occurring for individuals carefully reared in captivity.

Of course, enough live long enough to breed (in the case of rabbits, famously  ), so a high rate of death due to disease, parasitism, predation etc. doesn't extinct them - and if conditions are right populations can explode massively (for example - Australia). It is hard to see how competition from elderly rabbits ever became an evolutionary issue at all. 

[frunk]

On the contrary - the point I'm making is that, in reality, diesase, accidents, parasites and predation kill off just about all members of a species, particularly for a "prey species" such as rabbits in the wild. Old age is a vanishingly rare cause of death, only really occurring for individuals carefully reared in captivity.

Of course, enough live long enough to breed (in the case of rabbits, famously  ), so a high rate of death due to disease, parasitism, predation etc. doesn't extinct them - and if conditions are right populations can explode massively (for example - Australia). It is hard to see how competition from elderly rabbits ever became an evolutionary issue at all.

I think the Australia example is quite instructive, and I'm willing to bet that situations like that happened frequently in the past even without human intervention.  There were many major events in evolution history where a species gained a significant advantage over others and exploded through the fossil record.  See the introduction of trilobites, bony fish, dinosaurs and mammals.  Younger members of a species that had to compete with older members would be at a disadvantage in those situations.  So it isn't an adaptation for normal competitive situations but when a species has achieved unopposed dominance within its niche.

[Malthus]

On the contrary - the point I'm making is that, in reality, diesase, accidents, parasites and predation kill off just about all members of a species, particularly for a "prey species" such as rabbits in the wild. Old age is a vanishingly rare cause of death, only really occurring for individuals carefully reared in captivity.

Of course, enough live long enough to breed (in the case of rabbits, famously  ), so a high rate of death due to disease, parasitism, predation etc. doesn't extinct them - and if conditions are right populations can explode massively (for example - Australia). It is hard to see how competition from elderly rabbits ever became an evolutionary issue at all.

I think the Australia example is quite instructive, and I'm willing to bet that situations like that happened frequently in the past even without human intervention.  There were many major events in evolution history where a species gained a significant advantage over others and exploded through the fossil record.  See the introduction of trilobites, bony fish, dinosaurs and mammals.  Younger members of a species that had to compete with older members would be at a disadvantage in those situations.  So it isn't an adaptation for normal competitive situations but when a species has achieved unopposed dominance within its niche.

On an evolutionary time-scale, explosive growth events like the Rabbits in Australia example would be a blip in time before some sort of equilibrium was restored (albeit maybe one in which a new species was ubiquitous). Again, it is hard to imagine something as fundamental as aging was an evolutionary response to adaptation for such events.

[Eddie Teach]

I think non-aging cells would violate the third law of thermodynamics.

[The Brain]

I think non-aging cells would violate the third law of thermodynamics.

Maybe some of them. There's always a few bad eggs.

[Valmy]

I think non-aging cells would violate the third law of thermodynamics.

The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system at absolute zero is a well-defined constant.

The implications of non-aging cells on that are mind boggling.