http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/09/feature-man-who-wants-beat-back-aging
tl;dr: scientist conducts first study to combat aging, not just age-related diseases. May shift research direction.
Modern biology is just cool.
I am hoping on this kicking in before I turn 60. Come on Bio guys!
We already know how to stop aging. :huh:
It seems me that a better summary is that they are just going to be looking out to see if a well known, now cheap generic can delay/prevent old people from getting diseases often associated with old age. Oh and a hint that if the FDA sanctioned this, it would make looking into anti-aging something legitimate for drug research.
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2015, 01:09:05 PM
We already know how to stop aging. :huh:
The grail gives immortality, but doesn't appear to stop aging.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearysloth.com%2FGallery%2FActorsE%2F5123-9434.gif&hash=154df8efd7cadce1475b27e63bdf9a59f4206d02)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 22, 2015, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 22, 2015, 01:09:05 PM
We already know how to stop aging. :huh:
The grail gives immortality, but doesn't appear to stop aging.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wearysloth.com%2FGallery%2FActorsE%2F5123-9434.gif&hash=154df8efd7cadce1475b27e63bdf9a59f4206d02)
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.
When 900 years you reach, look as good you will not.
I am afraid there is a very good evolutionary/biological reason why organisms of self-killing (ie aging) cells became the dominant way of doing life. There must be something about not being able to keep things organised and efficient otherwise.
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.
Quote from: celedhring on September 23, 2015, 06:17:41 AM
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.
Wasn't really objecting to what you said, for what little I have read it's claimed we would have much more trouble with cancer if we didn't age. Was merely citing another mechanism that would make eternal youth undesirable.
Quote from: celedhring on September 23, 2015, 08:20:11 AM
Wasn't really objecting to what you said, for what little I have read it's claimed we would have much more trouble with cancer if we didn't age. Was merely citing another mechanism that would make eternal youth undesirable.
Um we are going to die anyway. Why suffer through old age while doing it? But maybe I do not understand what 'more trouble' means here. Would we all die before 60 if we didn't age?
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."
Google is getting in on anti-aging/longevity research too. They just recently hired away one of the Big Deal researchers from...the department that mine cooperates with a lot. Essentially promised her unlimited money (no more begging the government for funding), although I think she has to leave her mole rat colony here.
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2015, 04:00:10 AM
I am afraid there is a very good evolutionary/biological reason why organisms of self-killing (ie aging) cells became the dominant way of doing life. There must be something about not being able to keep things organised and efficient otherwise.
There's an very interesting argument made by some people that aging is a sensible evolutionary adaptation:
http://io9.com/are-limited-lifespans-an-evolutionary-adaptation-1710634703
Quote from: Tamas on September 23, 2015, 07:05:11 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 23, 2015, 06:17:41 AM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 23, 2015, 03:09:12 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Fate on September 23, 2015, 08:32:16 AM
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? :hmm: :P
I've heard heroin is good for weight loss.
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 03:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 06:47:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 03:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 06:47:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 03:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 08:45:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 06:47:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 03:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 24, 2015, 10:44:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 08:45:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 23, 2015, 06:47:11 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 23, 2015, 03:37:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 12:56:08 PM
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.
Quote from: frunk on September 24, 2015, 01:10:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 12:56:08 PM
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.
I think non-aging cells would violate the third law of thermodynamics.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 24, 2015, 02:24:47 PM
I think non-aging cells would violate the third law of thermodynamics.
Maybe some of them. There's always a few bad eggs.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 24, 2015, 02:24:47 PM
I think non-aging cells would violate the third law of thermodynamics.
QuoteThe third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a system at absolute zero is a well-defined constant.
:hmm:
The implications of non-aging cells on that are mind boggling.
Ok, I misspoke. They'd be impossible because of entropy, though it's possible entropy would be 0 at absolute zero.
Quote from: Malthus on September 24, 2015, 02:16:10 PM
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.
It depends a great deal on how frequently they occur, and if there are other adaptations that could have strengthened the value of such limitations. Consider if there was an adaptation that significantly increased youthful fertility but caused it to decline with time. That would further encourage the elderly to not hang around.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 24, 2015, 02:38:12 PM
Ok, I misspoke. They'd be impossible because of entropy, though it's possible entropy would be 0 at absolute zero.
True but entropy is managed by energy being added to the system, which would be the case for a non-aging organism of some sort. Besides aren't there non-aging animals out there? That immortal jellyfish. I know some trees can live for thousands of years.
And really if we figure out how to live for thousands of years that will be more than sufficient, very few would live through all the various other things that can kill us to get that old even without aging.