[HN Gopher] Cells Across the Body Talk to Each Other About Aging
___________________________________________________________________
Cells Across the Body Talk to Each Other About Aging
Author : birriel
Score : 79 points
Date : 2024-01-08 20:37 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
| fnord77 wrote:
| in worms
| tjr wrote:
| True. It's usually in mice. Nice change of pace!
| shove wrote:
| Yep, that's where we all end up!
| redcobra762 wrote:
| which have cells like humans
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| All living things have at least one cell, but they do not all
| operate in the same way. There's possibility that worm cells
| and human cells behave similarly in this, but it's also fully
| possible they behave in very dissimilar ways.
| LASR wrote:
| You know, I've recently wondered quite a bit about aging and how
| any of it makes sense.
|
| What has perplexed me is the notion of honest signals[1] in a
| world governed by natural selection and the survival of the
| fittest. Why wouldn't cheating exclusively emerge as the only
| strategy? Why wouldn't a species evolve a mechanism to survive
| longer and longer till it completely dominates?
|
| Then it dawned on me that the survival of the species is not
| aligned with the survival of an individual. Cheating maximizes
| the benefit to that individual. But possibly damages the
| collective. Why is why honest signals even exist.
|
| Aging and death as being pre-programmed is in service of the
| collective and that's why it even exists.
|
| A bit of existential dread. But sharing it nonetheless.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory
| kraftman wrote:
| it seems like dishonesty, at least in terms of reproduction,
| would self correct pretty fast? Like if an animal signals that
| its strong genetically, but it isnt actually, then its
| offspring wont fair as well and will be less likely to
| reproduce, so 'lying' would die off pretty quickly?
| Centigonal wrote:
| I think it's difficult to signal genetic fitness without
| actually being genetically fit.
|
| There are proxies to genetic fitness that are frequently and
| successfully mimicked, though. See e.g.:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry
| deadbabe wrote:
| Cheating could just get you killed off by jealous partners,
| cutting off your ability to reproduce more. It's like marking
| territory.
| kiba wrote:
| Aging being preprogrammed is only one hypothesis. The other
| hypothesis is that the evolution only selected for what work
| and reproduced.
|
| Note what work and reproduced is only a minimum bar.
| block_dagger wrote:
| > Why wouldn't a species evolve a mechanism to survive longer
| and longer till it completely dominates?
|
| Because evolution happens faster with sexually reproducing
| generations that die out to leave room for the fitter youth.
| taeric wrote:
| This is a lot more compelling when you consider what it takes
| to survive this generation is not the same thing that was
| needed to survive last generation. This was more obvious
| with, for example, the peppered moth.
| samstave wrote:
| Of note, is that organisms that have a more balanced, symbiotic
| relationship to their surrounding environment - with shared
| benefits, live a lot longer. Take thousand year old trees, and
| millenniums older mycelium networks.
|
| However, this doesnt explain tortoise (or 500 year old sharks)
|
| The amount of energy required to sustain Human growth and
| Civilization just grows and grows. If we had a scalable
| balanced, fully renewable resource in everything, we likely
| would live longer.
| huytersd wrote:
| The longer you live, the less adaptable your species is. The
| more generations you can have in a shorter amount of time, the
| faster you can have beneficial mutations that help your species
| survive changing conditions.
| troupe wrote:
| I'm not seeing how longevity slows the number of generations
| you can have per unit of time. That seems like it would be
| determined by how quickly a species reproduces after being
| born...not how long they live.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _longer you live, the less adaptable your species is_
|
| I live near Yellowstone. There are seasonal hunting grounds
| the bison, which live a decade or two, won't cross into. The
| wolves, meanwhile, don't live long enough for the lesson to
| stick. So they continuously cross and get shot.
|
| Humans erected an invisible barrier. The bison adapted where
| the wolves, arguably the more intelligent creature, did not,
| in part due to the latter's short lifespans.
|
| The best of both worlds would be a long-lived polygamous
| creature that's constantly reproducing. Ecology, however,
| proscribes limits on that approach.
| atticora wrote:
| > Then it dawned on me that the survival of the species is not
| aligned with the survival of an individual.
|
| The selfish genes control, and their survival is not perfectly
| aligned with either the individual or the species. If aging
| becomes too slow, adaptation slows, and successful genes become
| more rare and their propagation slows. Genes are replicators,
| replicators need turn-over to replicate, and greater age means
| slower turn-over.
|
| It may be that the advent of cultural replicators have
| decreased the optimal turn-over rate of genetic replicators,
| but they don't know that.
| jxy wrote:
| It's easier to think all the living things are carriers
| fabricated and controlled by self-replicating nano-bots.
| Whatever strategy the nano-bots come up with and eventually
| successfully allowing them to keep creating more nano-bots is
| the winning strategy.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Group Selection is not a thing[1].
|
| There's an equilibrium of honesty and dishonesty. If everyone
| is dishonest, no one trusts, and the dishonesty doesn't pay
| off. If everyone is honest, everyone trusts, and dishonesty
| pays off all the more.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#Criticism
| m3kw9 wrote:
| With tech these bets are off, what if it can further a
| collective further? Say making you stronger despite your genes,
| or using tech to assist us. It's already happening right now,
| look at all the tech around us
| troupe wrote:
| > Cheating maximizes the benefit to that individual. But
| possibly damages the collective.
|
| It would seem like a species that has a language would greatly
| benefit from having individuals with more years of experience
| on how to handle infrequent events like droughts, floods,
| abnormal animal migrations, etc.
| hot_gril wrote:
| I can see it being selected against for individualistic
| reasons. It's hard to keep the seed and mechanisms for
| reproduction healthy forever. Even if there's no harm to the
| group, anti-aging might have a cost that reduces the
| individual's ability to reproduce at an earlier age, or at
| least it doesn't help.
| Shorel wrote:
| I have believed that to be the case for a while. It's perfectly
| logical, from a species point of view.
|
| I also think that we are hardwired not to be able to believe
| our own lies, because of this. There is (99.9% of the time) a
| tell, for humans. For someone to effectively lie to us, we need
| to want to believe the lie, otherwise it fails.
|
| The TV show "Lie to me" is therefore a fascinating exploration
| (a bit exaggerated in its effectiveness) of how to detect and
| point out such tells.
| hughesjj wrote:
| Veratasium just made an approachable video on this subject
| recently, I definitely recommend. It rebukes the whole 'oh no I
| just heard what a Nash equilibrium is and now I'm worried
| cooperation is impossible long term' fears some people
| interpret his thought experiment (prisoners dillema) to have.
| Tldr it's rare that you can't coordinate, communicate, or have
| exactly one trial.
|
| https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM?si=v8FvrfMCHioLJET5
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-08 23:00 UTC)