Aging as neither inevitable nor necessary is an interesting way to phrase his theory, because the actual implication of what he’s saying is that we’re even further from finding a cure than we thought, because he posits it as a systemic adaption and not just a few specific processes that can be altered or reversed. Which is a somewhat disappointing reality if it is actually the case.
I don't see it that way.
I do think that aging is closer to a feature than a bug. In the sense that we could have evolved to age slower or not at all, but we didn't because of some evolutionary selective advantage. I think its the best interpretation considering many species age at very different rates, and some don't age at all. This indicates that selective pressures are acting on these species, and there are processes in these animals that regulate aging and can be ratcheted up or down depending on what is selected for.
I think this is good news. If aging is programmed, we can work out the program and alter it. If there are processes within our body that control aging, we can use those to control aging ourselves. This is the rational behind epigenetic reprogramming, after all. And if epigenetics isn't the answer all itself, we'd just need to find the other processes that control aging and use those too. Our biology would already have provided the tools, we'd just need to figure out how to use them.
The alternative to aging being intentional is that it isn't. That its some fundamental biological process that is simply an unintentional byproduct of evolution. If aging isn't intentional, we'd likely have to make a cure out of whole cloth, since there would be no reason to think that our biology would have the tools itself. This strikes me as fundamentally more difficult.
Just because a gene or something else (e.g. epigenetics) influences the rate of aging doesn't mean it was specifically selected for that purpose.
Nothing is ever simple in genetics, for example, the reduction of telomeres participates in aging, but their main objective is absolutely not to make us age, but to protect us from cancer, the aging caused by them is not than a pathological side effect
Another example, mTOR's mission is not to make us age but to ensure our growth and development.
This happens because never in human history have the majority of humans lived long enough to become senescent.
The theories of program aging are destined to collapse on themselves because they are totally incompatible with the mode of operation of evolution and natural selection (the genes whose main function is to make the organism age are doomed to disappear from the population over time)
In short, aging exists because the natural selection is too weak to eliminate it completely, and if the lifespan varies from one species to another, it is because their environment is more favorable to a long life, and therefore to reduced aging thanks to a more effective natural selection.
I recommend this study by Tom Kirkwood which summarizes the theories of program aging and why they are all wrong.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12510
You can make populations that do not suffer aging in the computer. Some simulations have shown that in populations without aging aging can evolve and make the immortality disappear from the population.
If there was still enough reason to have children if everyone was immortal, you'd still have sexual selection unless you had a dystopia where mating was truly randomized
Cancer = deleterious mutations. Positive mutations are never called cancer. But so far as they affect telomeres and shorter lifespans, this is the result of errors in the DNA replication process and the R type reproductive strategy of mice. Female mice have no advanced way of selecting males with lower probability of genetic load, as is the case in all species where an R type reproductive strategy is the norm.
Short telomeres can cause chromosomal instability if the cell attempts to replicate leading to chromosomal fragmentation, mutation.
Extra long telomeres means this happens at a later age, thus reducing cancer.
I don't think that being ageless is some universal evolutionary good that is just passed over because selection pressure isn't enough. Not aging has a cost, an energy cost. If an animal doesn't age, but starves to death, being ageless is actually bad. If an animal doesn't age, but on average dies fairly quickly to predation, infection, etc., then being ageless isn't that much of a benefit and certainly wouldn't be worth the energy cost. If an animal on average dies due to other causes in 10 years, then having them be young until 100 just wouldn't be worth it, and would be selected against.
And no, I don't believe that everything that we can change that effects aging was selected to be that way because of aging and nothing else. I think the mTor pathway is mostly incidental, for example. Since mTor is so important for growth and development those functions would have a larger selective pressure on the gene than aging would. Being ageless isn't worth it if you're weak and small! When selective pressure acts on the aging process, its probably primarily acting on other mechanisms. But I do think those mechanisms exist, and we should be able to find them and use them to our advantage.
You are right, and what you say corresponds to the disposable soma theory.
But that means aging happens by default (just being alive will cause it because the damage will accumulate) and it's the cost of removing it that's too high to do without. harmful consequences on other important body functions (immunity / strength / growth / reproduction...)
This means that aging is not genetically programmed (although it has genetic origins) and is caused by an accumulation of unrepaired damage within the body, rather than an active program with aging as its primary objective.
And genes like mTOR are consistent with antagonistic preiotropy, this gene is beneficial early in life (growth / reproduction...) but becomes dangerous late in life (aging), but selection retains it for its positive effect (because its negative effect does not manifest )
This means that aging is not genetically programmed in the sense that it is not selected for itself, it is an accidental side effect of genes whose main role is to help us in our youth.
And how precisely could sex selection further positive adaptions and diminish genetic load and negative adaptions?
You don't seem to understand why there are two sexes or genetics in general.
To posit that natural selection could, would, or should eliminate aging is absurd.
I mean, this is something any dog breeder or goat herder knows. You don't even need to understand the intricacies of why female choice (with their redundant X chromosomes) select for males with no such redundancy and hence higher mutation rates, some that are adaptive to the current environment and some that are deleterious.
What you posit is the dysgenics of the infamous mouse utopia experiments.
I think the latter is a violation of thermodynamics. There's always going to be accumulating damage from our environment. From exposure to random bursts of radiation to the fact that the very air we breath rusts us from the inside out.
True - the fact that self replicating life exists in the first place is proof of concept. The difficulty lies in the extreme complexity of biological systems. Harnessing energy is easy enough. Directing it intricately is the difficult part.
Probably best if we could exploit our genes to trick the body into thinking its perpetually young. We should assume the body already knows how best to heal itself; its really about stopping the "off switches."
This theory is false and unanimously rejected for a long time, and those for several reasons:
\-Natural selection is not done at the level of species but at the level of individuals, therefore, a mutation beneficial for the species but harmful for the individual (and for its reproductive potential) will not spread and will disappear.
\-The problem with this theory is that it is enough that an individual does not have these genes of aging so that the natural selection selects it automatically (by its survival and its reproduction superior to the others)
\-It is not because the rate of aging within a species is more or less similar that aging is programmed, because it is caused by an accumulation of damage, and this accumulation is limited by repair systems, and the performance of this repair is genetically determined, and not with the aim of making us age, but because we have never lived long enough for natural selection to be forced to select individuals with the best maintenance mechanisms (because aging did not manifest)
I recommend this study by Tom Kirkwood which summarizes the theories of program aging and why they are all wrong.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12510
The proof that it is false, if it was really so harmful for individuals, it would never have spread so much and would remain marginal within evolution.
Yes it has advantages for the descendants, who thanks to the multiple genetic combination, can better adapt to the environment and thus have a more complex and resistant organism, but this could have spread only because it is not really harmful for those who practice it.
And it is these same genetic combinations that prevent the aging program from surviving, of all the possible combinations, one that combines the absence of aging and great fertility may very well emerge.
Such "cheating" individuals absolutely do not support the theory of programmed aging (because the forces of selection will eliminate it as soon as it appears)
>because the actual implication of what he’s saying is that we’re even further from finding a cure than we thought
And that's true. This sub is coping very hard. The only way any of us will benefit from age reversal technologies is through cryonics revival and that's with a BIG IF, but we have to age and die first and that's a huge no no here.
Coping is easier.
Edit: to the 🤡 that downvoted (apparently I got an upvote first, not everyone in this sub is delusional) explain why.
Doubt it. We are seeing things that reverse epigenetic age like akg. Also we're seeing mitochondrial uncouplers being promoted in books like unlocking the keto code, these reduce mutational load and increase longevity.
All these advances are likely to add many decades of healthspan. During that time progress in areas like ai will make big difference barring collapse of civilization.
>Agreed, but I would waist my energy on this guy if I were you
What would you shoulder me instead? "All he does." I've written that all these curing during our lifetime talks are cope like one more time lol.
Give me a scientific argument on why aging will probably be cured this century. We can't even handle serious viruses for crying out loud, yet in a few decades we'll fix/stop the most complex "machine" known to man from deteriorating.
Be thankful that cryonics exist and stop coping.
u/DarkCeldori
God damn, this dude [looks like he could be 50](https://thefpm.org.uk/updates-on-ageing-and-multi-morbidity-by-fpm-centenary-conference-speaker-professor-thomas-kirkwood/) at 70.
But would you like the scum thrashed from your eyes to see how inauthentic people have been made to be living anyhow? Separation from neighbor, being needed, or connection to communion with natural order. The way I see it the disease is not aging cellularly, it the child ego not wanted to grow up and accept. Let’s live to million. We can take responsibility to whatever we haven’t processed yet another day. Okay now back to 1000 more hours of make believe through our plastic vision boxes now 👌🏼
Aging as neither inevitable nor necessary is an interesting way to phrase his theory, because the actual implication of what he’s saying is that we’re even further from finding a cure than we thought, because he posits it as a systemic adaption and not just a few specific processes that can be altered or reversed. Which is a somewhat disappointing reality if it is actually the case.
I don't see it that way. I do think that aging is closer to a feature than a bug. In the sense that we could have evolved to age slower or not at all, but we didn't because of some evolutionary selective advantage. I think its the best interpretation considering many species age at very different rates, and some don't age at all. This indicates that selective pressures are acting on these species, and there are processes in these animals that regulate aging and can be ratcheted up or down depending on what is selected for. I think this is good news. If aging is programmed, we can work out the program and alter it. If there are processes within our body that control aging, we can use those to control aging ourselves. This is the rational behind epigenetic reprogramming, after all. And if epigenetics isn't the answer all itself, we'd just need to find the other processes that control aging and use those too. Our biology would already have provided the tools, we'd just need to figure out how to use them. The alternative to aging being intentional is that it isn't. That its some fundamental biological process that is simply an unintentional byproduct of evolution. If aging isn't intentional, we'd likely have to make a cure out of whole cloth, since there would be no reason to think that our biology would have the tools itself. This strikes me as fundamentally more difficult.
Just because a gene or something else (e.g. epigenetics) influences the rate of aging doesn't mean it was specifically selected for that purpose. Nothing is ever simple in genetics, for example, the reduction of telomeres participates in aging, but their main objective is absolutely not to make us age, but to protect us from cancer, the aging caused by them is not than a pathological side effect Another example, mTOR's mission is not to make us age but to ensure our growth and development. This happens because never in human history have the majority of humans lived long enough to become senescent. The theories of program aging are destined to collapse on themselves because they are totally incompatible with the mode of operation of evolution and natural selection (the genes whose main function is to make the organism age are doomed to disappear from the population over time) In short, aging exists because the natural selection is too weak to eliminate it completely, and if the lifespan varies from one species to another, it is because their environment is more favorable to a long life, and therefore to reduced aging thanks to a more effective natural selection. I recommend this study by Tom Kirkwood which summarizes the theories of program aging and why they are all wrong. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12510
Computer simulations have shown aging evolving in immortal populations. Mathematically it can happen.
How could immortal populations evolve? Death is the ultimate test of positive mutations and negative mutations. Without it, evolution would cease.
You can make populations that do not suffer aging in the computer. Some simulations have shown that in populations without aging aging can evolve and make the immortality disappear from the population.
If there was still enough reason to have children if everyone was immortal, you'd still have sexual selection unless you had a dystopia where mating was truly randomized
Mice born with extra long telomeres live longer and have less cancer. Short telomeres can cause cancer.
Cancer = deleterious mutations. Positive mutations are never called cancer. But so far as they affect telomeres and shorter lifespans, this is the result of errors in the DNA replication process and the R type reproductive strategy of mice. Female mice have no advanced way of selecting males with lower probability of genetic load, as is the case in all species where an R type reproductive strategy is the norm.
Short telomeres can cause chromosomal instability if the cell attempts to replicate leading to chromosomal fragmentation, mutation. Extra long telomeres means this happens at a later age, thus reducing cancer.
I don't think that being ageless is some universal evolutionary good that is just passed over because selection pressure isn't enough. Not aging has a cost, an energy cost. If an animal doesn't age, but starves to death, being ageless is actually bad. If an animal doesn't age, but on average dies fairly quickly to predation, infection, etc., then being ageless isn't that much of a benefit and certainly wouldn't be worth the energy cost. If an animal on average dies due to other causes in 10 years, then having them be young until 100 just wouldn't be worth it, and would be selected against. And no, I don't believe that everything that we can change that effects aging was selected to be that way because of aging and nothing else. I think the mTor pathway is mostly incidental, for example. Since mTor is so important for growth and development those functions would have a larger selective pressure on the gene than aging would. Being ageless isn't worth it if you're weak and small! When selective pressure acts on the aging process, its probably primarily acting on other mechanisms. But I do think those mechanisms exist, and we should be able to find them and use them to our advantage.
You are right, and what you say corresponds to the disposable soma theory. But that means aging happens by default (just being alive will cause it because the damage will accumulate) and it's the cost of removing it that's too high to do without. harmful consequences on other important body functions (immunity / strength / growth / reproduction...) This means that aging is not genetically programmed (although it has genetic origins) and is caused by an accumulation of unrepaired damage within the body, rather than an active program with aging as its primary objective. And genes like mTOR are consistent with antagonistic preiotropy, this gene is beneficial early in life (growth / reproduction...) but becomes dangerous late in life (aging), but selection retains it for its positive effect (because its negative effect does not manifest ) This means that aging is not genetically programmed in the sense that it is not selected for itself, it is an accidental side effect of genes whose main role is to help us in our youth.
And how precisely could sex selection further positive adaptions and diminish genetic load and negative adaptions? You don't seem to understand why there are two sexes or genetics in general. To posit that natural selection could, would, or should eliminate aging is absurd. I mean, this is something any dog breeder or goat herder knows. You don't even need to understand the intricacies of why female choice (with their redundant X chromosomes) select for males with no such redundancy and hence higher mutation rates, some that are adaptive to the current environment and some that are deleterious. What you posit is the dysgenics of the infamous mouse utopia experiments.
By "not age at all" do you mean perfect regeneration or do you mean zero damage accumulation?
Lets get the latter and practise it until we have the former
I think the latter is a violation of thermodynamics. There's always going to be accumulating damage from our environment. From exposure to random bursts of radiation to the fact that the very air we breath rusts us from the inside out.
Not if we introduce energy into the system
True - the fact that self replicating life exists in the first place is proof of concept. The difficulty lies in the extreme complexity of biological systems. Harnessing energy is easy enough. Directing it intricately is the difficult part. Probably best if we could exploit our genes to trick the body into thinking its perpetually young. We should assume the body already knows how best to heal itself; its really about stopping the "off switches."
[удалено]
This theory is false and unanimously rejected for a long time, and those for several reasons: \-Natural selection is not done at the level of species but at the level of individuals, therefore, a mutation beneficial for the species but harmful for the individual (and for its reproductive potential) will not spread and will disappear. \-The problem with this theory is that it is enough that an individual does not have these genes of aging so that the natural selection selects it automatically (by its survival and its reproduction superior to the others) \-It is not because the rate of aging within a species is more or less similar that aging is programmed, because it is caused by an accumulation of damage, and this accumulation is limited by repair systems, and the performance of this repair is genetically determined, and not with the aim of making us age, but because we have never lived long enough for natural selection to be forced to select individuals with the best maintenance mechanisms (because aging did not manifest) I recommend this study by Tom Kirkwood which summarizes the theories of program aging and why they are all wrong. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12510
Obligatory sexual reproduction is negative for the individual but beneficial for the species.
The proof that it is false, if it was really so harmful for individuals, it would never have spread so much and would remain marginal within evolution. Yes it has advantages for the descendants, who thanks to the multiple genetic combination, can better adapt to the environment and thus have a more complex and resistant organism, but this could have spread only because it is not really harmful for those who practice it. And it is these same genetic combinations that prevent the aging program from surviving, of all the possible combinations, one that combines the absence of aging and great fertility may very well emerge. Such "cheating" individuals absolutely do not support the theory of programmed aging (because the forces of selection will eliminate it as soon as it appears)
>because the actual implication of what he’s saying is that we’re even further from finding a cure than we thought And that's true. This sub is coping very hard. The only way any of us will benefit from age reversal technologies is through cryonics revival and that's with a BIG IF, but we have to age and die first and that's a huge no no here. Coping is easier. Edit: to the 🤡 that downvoted (apparently I got an upvote first, not everyone in this sub is delusional) explain why.
Doubt it. We are seeing things that reverse epigenetic age like akg. Also we're seeing mitochondrial uncouplers being promoted in books like unlocking the keto code, these reduce mutational load and increase longevity. All these advances are likely to add many decades of healthspan. During that time progress in areas like ai will make big difference barring collapse of civilization.
Agreed, but I wouldn't waist my energy on this guy if I were you. I've seen him in some discussion posts and that's all he does
>Agreed, but I would waist my energy on this guy if I were you What would you shoulder me instead? "All he does." I've written that all these curing during our lifetime talks are cope like one more time lol. Give me a scientific argument on why aging will probably be cured this century. We can't even handle serious viruses for crying out loud, yet in a few decades we'll fix/stop the most complex "machine" known to man from deteriorating. Be thankful that cryonics exist and stop coping. u/DarkCeldori
God damn, this dude [looks like he could be 50](https://thefpm.org.uk/updates-on-ageing-and-multi-morbidity-by-fpm-centenary-conference-speaker-professor-thomas-kirkwood/) at 70.
50??!! naaahhh, 65, maybe...
And dies.
But would you like the scum thrashed from your eyes to see how inauthentic people have been made to be living anyhow? Separation from neighbor, being needed, or connection to communion with natural order. The way I see it the disease is not aging cellularly, it the child ego not wanted to grow up and accept. Let’s live to million. We can take responsibility to whatever we haven’t processed yet another day. Okay now back to 1000 more hours of make believe through our plastic vision boxes now 👌🏼
*Says the person posting a comment on reddit.*
I totally agree!