[HN Gopher] Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age
___________________________________________________________________
Some fish live beyond 100 and get healthier as they age
Author : prmph
Score : 159 points
Date : 2024-01-21 13:01 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nationalgeographic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nationalgeographic.com)
| callamdelaney wrote:
| Paywall
| idopmstuff wrote:
| https://archive.is/WTVrj
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| tl;dr:
|
| The older ones are better able to fight bacteria, and have a
| "lower ratio of neutrophils to lymphocytes in the blood", which
| ratio indicates stress. They evolved to live a long time because
| good breeding conditions are rare. No word on biochemical
| mechanisms.
| j16sdiz wrote:
| > These calcium carbonate structures, which allow fish to hear
| and sense vibrations in the water, form a new layer each year
| that can be read somewhat like tree rings.
|
| Each time I read dating method like these, I wonder how stable
| these method are. Sure they are sensitive to water temperature,
| right? We have not-so-long-term climate changes, periodic solar
| storms and irregular volcano eruption.. All these are affect
| water temperture...
| taway_6PplYu5 wrote:
| Wait, so you are saying that over the course of 85 years, we've
| had enough volcanic eruptions to disrupt the counting of the
| equivalent of tree rings in fish bones, in a lake in Arizona?
| When we KNOW when the fish were first put there?
|
| Has Arizona had that many volcanic eruptions in the 20th
| century which we somehow forgot to notice, but were still
| strong enough to disrupt the fish?
|
| https://tucson.com/news/local/environment/old-fish-in-arizon...
|
| Just over a century ago, several hundred game fish raised in
| ponds in Iowa were hauled across the country by rail to be
| released into Arizona's newly dammed Salt River.
|
| A recent study suggests some of those transplanted buffalofish
| are still alive today in the waters of Apache Lake.
|
| Not their descendants. Not members of the same species. The
| same individual fish that were sent west in 1918, as World War
| I was winding down in Europe during Woodrow Wilson's second
| term as president.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| Yes, they are susceptible to temperature. Seasonal temperature
| changes are mostly what causes them in the first place.
| Additionally, researchers have used water temperature to create
| otolith barcodes in captive fish before release. Otolith bands
| are the result of seasonal changes in growth rate, which is
| highly trusted to temperature and is why it's a less reliable
| technique in tropical or deep water species.
|
| That getting said, climate change and other things are unlikely
| to overwhelm the seasonal cycles. Yes, it's gotten warmer, but
| it's still colder in winter.
|
| It's also preferable to have validation for a given taxa, but i
| wouldn't expect that particular worry to be the failure more.
| adrianvoica wrote:
| That's because they drink a lot of water, and everybody knows
| water is good for you. :)))
| 6d6b73 wrote:
| Or maybe that physican of the Chinese emperor was right that
| mercury is the key to immortality?
| bbarnett wrote:
| Wait, is it? The FDA lied about masks, and bleach, and now
| mercury?
|
| Do you know where I can get some?
| taway_6PplYu5 wrote:
| The trick is you need to filter it through asbestos before
| you drink it.
| InSteady wrote:
| Kindly consider taking these mediocre jokes back to
| reddit, all of you.
| MarkusQ wrote:
| Nah, it's the fish oil that does it.
| bestouff wrote:
| > In one study, bigmouth buffalo had stronger immune systems than
| younger fish.
|
| Or maybe only fishes with a stronger immune system get older ?
| crazydoggers wrote:
| Selection bias ~= natural selection.
|
| If bigmouth buffalo procreate for more years because they live
| longer with stronger immune systems, then they will eventually
| make up the majority of the population.
| np_tedious wrote:
| So long as they remain capable of reproduction in those later
| years
| baxtr wrote:
| Is that so? I thought it's enough if they provide an
| advantage for their genes.
|
| Maybe healthier older fish protect their offspring more
| effectively.
| crazydoggers wrote:
| Yes, you're 100% correct. You've described kin selection.
| So if grandparent fish can somehow help their
| grandchildren procreate more, then that can be selected
| for.
|
| I've heard of territory defense helping with fish, but no
| idea about the fish mentioned specifically.
|
| Also to the previous comment, I think there's already a
| fair bit of evidence that older larger fish do continue
| to breed, (hence throwing back the bigger fish breeders).
|
| But if they stop breeding, and there is no kin selection;
| then yes, natural selection wouldn't play a role.
| DelaneyM wrote:
| Or if they care for their descendants in their later years.
|
| (Not saying fish do this, though I wouldn't be surprised if
| giant elder fish clear out predators. A lot of people
| forget this bit but it's suspected of being a big factor in
| insect and lobster longevity, which both capable of
| recognizing their offspring and not being territorial to
| their presence.)
| makz wrote:
| You may be into something. I've been on the fish keeping hobby
| for decades and right now the number 1 cause of mortality of
| captive fish is immune system overload.
| pitdicker wrote:
| Or something changed in the environment that made younger fish
| less healthy.
| kristopolous wrote:
| Do you really think the researchers aren't aware of
| survivorship bias?
| pingou wrote:
| "The otolith analysis revealed that about 90 percent of Apache
| Lake's buffalofishes were more than 85 years old". That sounds
| very fishy. Perhaps they just have some sort of genetic code that
| make them create those new layers of calcium carbonate structures
| more often than once a year.
| inciampati wrote:
| This is not "genetic code"!
| MostlyStable wrote:
| It is important to validate any aging method, including
| otoliths, and there have been cases of system misaging. The fin
| ray and scale based ages used in West Coast ground fishery
| management in the 80s resulted in systemic under aging that
| contributed to the over fishing and collapse of multiple
| rockfish species, for example. But otoliths in temperate fish
| species are generally one of the most consistent and reliable
| aging methods across multiple taxa.
|
| So hopefully otolith aging has been validated for this species
| in particular or at least a closely related one, but if not
| it's more likely than not reasonably reliable.
|
| As for the population dynamics, it's not actually necessarily
| that strange. For many species, mortality occurs almost
| entirely in the early life history. Once fish escape that
| period, they are very unlikely to die. This can take in exactly
| this kind of dynamic were very few young fish are alive at any
| one point and most of the extent fish are very old.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > otoliths in temperate fish species are generally one of the
| most consistent and reliable aging methods
|
| Ha ha ha haaaa!!
|
| Sorry, but that claim was hilarious. I had the (lets call it)
| "pleasure" to read otoliths in the past, and consistent and
| reliable is not how I would describe it. Not even close. For
| most species it just happens that nobody validated the system
| first. This means that everybody extrapolates, but nobody
| really knows how many rings are formed each year. But "oh,
| that fish lived for 800 years"... highly publishable
| MostlyStable wrote:
| I currently work in a lab that primarily does otolith based
| growth and aging. It is and has been my primary job for
| over 7 years (although I don't do that actual reading of
| the otoliths, I work with the data that comes out of it)
|
| I think you are misreading my comment. I did not say that
| it was easy or that it was always consistent and reliable.
| I said it was one of the most consistent and reliable aging
| methods, which is an inherently relative statement.
| Compared to other common aging techniques such as scales,
| fin rays, and vertebrae, it is exactly those two things:
| _more_ consistent and reliable.
|
| It can be _more_ and yet still not _particularly_. And, in
| many cases, yes, it is not always very reliable and in many
| species it has not been specifically validated. But it is
| still the best, more reliable technique we have for aging
| fishes. In addition, please note that _literally_ the first
| sentence in my comment was the importance of validating an
| age technique. I am well aware of the issues in aging.
| Those issues absolutely do not amount to the (implied)
| conclusion of your comment that they are garbage that
| shouldn 't be relied upon.
|
| Also, just a piece of advice: you do not come off as
| particularly authoritative when you make wildly hyperbolic
| statements like contesting claims of 800 year old fish.
| nilsherzig wrote:
| Fishy
| fb03 wrote:
| That is beyond amazing to me.
|
| As a layperson in biology related stuff, I'd like to ask: How do
| scientists estimate the age of non-human animals?
| rpmisms wrote:
| For some fish, you can count the rings on their scales like a
| tree.
| momento wrote:
| Look up Otoliths. It's a bone in the ear of fish that is
| commonly used for aging.
| MostlyStable wrote:
| Otoliths are calcium carbonate structures that form in the
| heads of fishes that help with balance and orientation. Humans
| actually have similar things in their ear canals, they just
| don't aggregate and it's more like sand.
|
| These structured grow with the fish and seasonal changes in
| growth rate cause lighter and darker alternating bands, similar
| to tree rings. When prepared correctly, these bands can be
| viewed and counted inter s microscope.
|
| Similar methods are used in fin rays and spines, scales, and
| vertebrae, although otoliths are generally considered the gold
| standard
| Symmetry wrote:
| It's not clear from the article but animals can generally live
| quite a bit longer than you'd expect if they continue to grow for
| their entire life, which is true for some types of fish. Gunk
| that builds up inside or between cells gets redistributed over
| larger areas, as do cells that become senescent. And larger size
| means more space for memory T cells. Those are only some aspects
| of aging of course.
| thfuran wrote:
| Don't cancer rates tend to correlate positively with number of
| cells?
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Not for whales so YMMV.
| thfuran wrote:
| It's not consistent across species because different
| species have different mechanisms for averting tumor
| growth. But within species (certainly among humans, and I'm
| pretty sure also among others), more cells means more
| opportunities for something to go wrong and so more cancer.
| jb1991 wrote:
| Counterpoint: elephants.
| feedsmgmt wrote:
| Isn't that because the ocean water blocks radiation?
| wongarsu wrote:
| Yes, but the bigger you are the bigger the tumor has to be to
| notably impact your health.
| jb1991 wrote:
| No; elephants are a good example of animals with relatively
| low cancer rates.
| agumonkey wrote:
| so it's a matter of density (which is probably what
| grandparent was hinting at)
| DougWebb wrote:
| So, getting fatter as I get older is a good thing? /s
| bloomingeek wrote:
| Good morning to you, sir!
| swayvil wrote:
| It's all the cardio. Fish do cardio 24-7 their whole life.
| Therefore older=better.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Most fish (non domesticated) I've seen, tend to find places to
| hide while sleeping. Rocks, crevasses, in plants.
|
| Are cattle doing cardio because they're standing while
| sleeping?
|
| I see what you're saying, but fish don't have to do a lot to
| station keep.
| pvaldes wrote:
| well said, Catostomus are carps that remain still in the
| bottom a lot of time. They are not big swimmers. Their main
| concern is to suck a rock with enough force to stand their
| ground against currents. Remaining in waters with a lot of
| oxygen, that just travel straight to your gills, is like a
| holiday for the heart.
| InSteady wrote:
| What's with the low effort, mediocre joke posts today?
| swayvil wrote:
| What takes less effort, the low effort post or the complaint
| about the low effort post?
|
| But seriously, it's a subtle joke meant for esoteric
| perspectives. Intended for like 1%.
| sirobg wrote:
| > Buffalofish can go decades between successful reproductions
| because they require very specific environmental conditions--most
| of which are still unknown--to procreate. That's why the fish
| evolved to live so long: It's an evolutionary adaptation to
| account for long periods without breeding, according to Lackmann.
|
| This reminds me of "The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant" by Nick
| Bostrom [1]. Senescence is engraved in our brains as universal.
| Just like our expectation about health which should deteriorate
| overtime.
|
| [1] https://nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon
| 7thaccount wrote:
| What a wonderful fable. I enjoyed reading it and wish there was
| more research occuring in this field. Still, I'm impressed from
| what I hear in the news from time to time.
| sirobg wrote:
| Yes it's so good.
|
| An amazing way to give a new perspective on life and death as
| we know it _today_ imho.
|
| Strong emphasis on _today_ because life expectancy, healthy
| life expectancy and death are already really different from
| some time ago.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
| nradov wrote:
| There is an enormous amount of money being spent on research
| to figure out how to prevent people from dying. You're
| welcome to donate your own money to the many non-profit
| foundations issuing research grants in that field.
| flqn wrote:
| A well written fable, but its moral would not be equitable in
| the world of today. It's inevitable that access to "defeating
| the dragon" would be available to only the most affluent in
| society, whom have also led the most comfortable lives. There
| is no fairness in allowing these people to enjoy extended or
| indefinite lifespans whilst countless others suffer inhumane
| conditions only to die early.
| narcraft wrote:
| This is an argument against pursuing equitability as an end
| in and of itself
| flqn wrote:
| I disagree, it's more an argument that even though
| advancement of human capability can bring great gains
| (defeating the dragon) we need to pursue equitability in
| these gains or otherwise they are unethically allocated.
|
| The rising tide should raise ALL boats, otherwise
| inequitability will lead to social instability as seen
| througout human history so far.
| benlivengood wrote:
| While I agree that modern societies and especially global
| wealth are very inequitable I think medicine is one of
| the areas where it is _almost_ universally agreed in
| practice to raise all boats. Generic medications are made
| available, foreign aid is often in the form of medicines
| and medical support, and global institutions are funded
| with the aim of raising all boats. Should life extension
| become possible through medicine or treatments it seems
| likely that the existing process of trying to achieve
| global medical equity will continue. Clearly life
| extension will be very highly valued and if it is out of
| reach of 95% or 99% of the human population there will be
| intense pressure to socialize its benefits to everyone.
| Where I can see problems is if life extension is out of
| reach of 50% or 75% of the world population due to
| material /equipment/personnel costs; that's a lot harder
| to socialize globally and would be similar to advanced
| cancer treatments and organ transplants/replacements
| which could be seen as the leading edge of longevity
| treatments.
|
| I don't think there's a moral argument against expensive
| cancer/organ treatments being made available in wealthy
| countries; it doesn't seem like any progress on treating
| those diseases will be made at all if the treatments
| can't be made available, regardless of their extreme
| inequity.
| sirobg wrote:
| I think medicine gave a good hit to the dragon over the
| years.
|
| At first only rich people beneficiated from it. But
| thankfully today medicine advantages are better distributed.
| We are not equals by any means and some countries are lagging
| behind, but it is better.
|
| Link to my other comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39080399
|
| I have good hopes the same pattern could occur here.
| flqn wrote:
| Perhaps the "rising tide" takes longer to reach some than
| others. I hope for a more equitable, fairer future, but
| it's likely my outlook is somewhat jaded.
| sirobg wrote:
| Honestly I also get your take. I think it will depend on
| the "thing" that will enable us to live longer and
| healthier.
|
| If it is something very expensive and an overnight
| discovery, then it is likely that a dystopian era will
| occur... Just imagine some kind of tyrant (as a reference
| to the fable!) reigning over a country for 100+ years.
|
| But it could also be somewhat like what happened with
| medicine: the sum of smaller improvements, some more
| expensive than others, years after years.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| I agree, the tide analogy kinda breaks down here though.
| We're all familiar that it's somewhat rare that a
| technological advancement goes from no usage to film and
| wide distribution in one step. New technologies are
| distributed only to the rich precisely because they are
| time and resource intensive to develop and can only be
| feasibly prepared via a process which will inevitably
| occur costs that the majority of humans will not be able
| to meet. But you _need_ those first few rich people,
| because the money they put in starts the feedback cycle
| that would not be able to start otherwise. Ideally this
| then begins a process of optimization which gradually
| allows these products to become available to everyone.
|
| Inequality is the price of innovation, but it doesn't
| have to be paid forever.
| nradov wrote:
| The major increases in human lifespan have come from public
| sanitation, food safety, vaccinations, antibiotics, and
| trauma care. The rest of medicine has had only a small
| impact.
| ghodith wrote:
| Imagine a world where immortality is given to 1% of the
| populace per year such that in 100 years everyone is
| immortal, but it is given in order of decreasing wealth.
|
| Now imagine a world in which no one is immortal for 99 years,
| but on the 100th year everyone gains immortality at once.
|
| The latter is vastly more equitable, but to choose such a
| world would be horrific in cost of lives.
|
| I can imagine the dystopia that would come from an undying
| elite ruling over a mortal underclass. However, in any
| situation short of that extreme, I would never promote
| anything that would slow the search for immortality.
| Especially not for the mere bog standard modern conception of
| _equity_ ; crab-bucket mentality here will only serve to keep
| us all scrabbling in the dirt.
| D-Coder wrote:
| > It's inevitable that access to "defeating the dragon" would
| be available to only the most affluent in society, whom have
| also led the most comfortable lives.
|
| I don't see that it's inevitable at all. (a) The solution may
| be very affordable. (b) Any government that does not get the
| treatment to all citizens is likely be voted out or
| overthrown.
| ijhuygft776 wrote:
| The environmental conditions are unknown but they _know_ that
| they are the cause....
| alpaca128 wrote:
| If the fish can't be normally observed procreating at times
| then it's quite obvious it needs different conditions.
| ijhuygft776 wrote:
| are they environmental conditions though?
| iakov wrote:
| What else can be a factor? Fishies libido?
| charrondev wrote:
| It's a well written fable. There's a pretty well narrated
| animation of the fable as well [0].
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/cZYNADOHhVY?si=3zJIGBlfWmnml5i-
| cubefox wrote:
| Unfortunately he doesn't address overpopulation. Admittedly,
| birth rates are declining rapidly.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| People would definitely put off having kids if they had
| extended lifespans.
|
| They're already doing it with our regular lifespans.
| pie420 wrote:
| There is an entire universe to fill, overpopulation is just
| as worthy of worrying about as is running out of numbers.
| cubefox wrote:
| Currently there is only Earth to fill.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Evolution doesn't choose these things and it isn't a conscious
| choice with the organism
|
| It's just random mutations selected for or we never get to see
| a buffalofish, the latter happens far more often and is the
| crux of evolution by natural selection: orders of magnitude
| more species that died out
| rtourn wrote:
| I think Altered Carbon brought up the most chilling view of a
| world without death. In that exploration only the rich are
| immortal, because the poor can't afford immortality. Someone
| being rich for hundreds of years will only cement their their
| power, position, and their perspective. How do we feel if
| Rockefeller were still alive and powerful? What if our old
| kings never died? If any of them had a sexual perversion, what
| if it continued for hundreds of years? Where does that road
| lead?
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| I wonder if people really would ossify after hundreds of
| years or eventually learn to be hyper-adaptable.
|
| Current centenarians are a bad example, because their brains
| and bodies are falling apart.
|
| Some sci fi suggests that the fact of our living and dying in
| just one century means we die as immature children.
|
| Maybe it takes a thousand years or ten thousand years to
| "know thyself" to any useful degree.
| godelski wrote:
| In a rather unpopular opinion, I think most people are more
| of a product of their environments than we like to believe.
| If you look at the rate at which social change happens and
| public opinion about certain topics, it happens much faster
| than new generations replace the old. A good example of
| this is with same-sex marriage. Opinion changed rapidly and
| I'm sure many have even forgot all the things said before
| Obergefell v. Hodges. Certainly new generations have new
| ideas and put pressures on the environment, but I think
| there's too much weighting in most people's models of how
| much change is held up and requires older generations to
| exit the decision making process.
| Georgelemental wrote:
| > If you look at the rate at which social change happens
| and public opinion about certain topics, it happens much
| faster than new generations replace the old.
|
| To the contrary, it happens exactly that fast.
| https://scholars-stage.org/culture-wars-are-long-wars/
| pie420 wrote:
| This is so incorrect it's laughable. If you look at the
| data, public opinion in america has changed almost
| exactly in step with new generations emerging and old
| generations dying. People almost never change their
| opinion on political issues, they just die.
| poulsbohemian wrote:
| >A good example of this is with same-sex marriage.
| Opinion changed rapidly and I'm sure many have even
| forgot all the things said before Obergefell v. Hodges.
|
| Do you live on one of the US coasts? Because if so, you
| are probably right - before Obergefell, most people
| didn't care about your private life and after Obergefell
| it could all finally be out in the open. But in a big
| chunk of this country, it really doesn't matter what the
| courts decided because there is major political and
| religious pressure that says that ain't ok. Don't pretend
| for a moment that a wide swath of states wouldn't send us
| straight back to 1863 if they could.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > Some sci fi suggests
|
| Jonathon Swift explored this idea in 1726, in Gulliver's
| Travels, with the Struldbruggs [0] - decrepit immortals.
| Struldbruggs also popped up in Larry Niven's Known Space
| universe [1], albeit there as the name of a club for the
| old and powerful (IIRC with an increasing minimum age to
| keep out the young whippersnappers).
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struldbrugg
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Ptavvs
| m463 wrote:
| I think people stop adapting lots earlier than the time
| their body starts breaking down.
|
| In fact, the body breaking down might be a reason people
| become adaptable.
| andromeduck wrote:
| This is the premise of In Time (film) too.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Yeah, but Altered Carbon does it immeasurably better from
| all angles.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I've heard that "In Time" was ripped off from "Repent
| Harlequin Said The Tictockman"
| (https://www.d.umn.edu/~tbacig/cst1010/chs/ellison.html).
| It's worth the 5 minutes it should take to read it, even if
| you take 6 ;)
| huytersd wrote:
| Why specifically point out a sexual perversion. It seems like
| the least of the bad things an authority figure like a king
| could do.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Epstein.
| blargey wrote:
| > what if only a tyrannical nobility could benefit from this
| new technology, and it stayed that way forever?!
|
| Yeah it goes without saying that's a bad thing, for any
| technology. That shouldn't convince anyone that Logan's Run
| is preferable.
| somesortofthing wrote:
| This is dependent on a world where immortality is expensive
| because it's difficult to actually make someone immortal
| rather than because it's difficult to figure out how to make
| someone immortal. For all we know, immortality is as simple
| as a one-time injection into an egg cell, and the challenge
| is almost entirely in figuring out _what_ to inject.
|
| Also, how much is the death of bad individuals actually
| contributing to making the world a better place? It seems to
| me like the various abuses of robber-barons and tyrants past
| and present are perpetuated by institutions built around them
| rather than their own personal capacity to affect the world.
| A king in exile on a remote island or a Rockefeller driven to
| bankruptcy can remain unchanged as a person while losing
| virtually all of their capacity to impose their will on the
| world, while a kingdom or corporation can keep going
| centuries after the death of its leader if conditions stay
| favorable.
| sorokod wrote:
| Nit, there is RD - real death in the altered carbon universe.
| Happens when an individual's cortical stack is destroyed.
| Solvency wrote:
| How does this track with bioaccumulation of plastics and mercury
| and other pollutants over such a long life?
| verisimi wrote:
| It must be their vaccination schedule
| stevebmark wrote:
| If you're curious to learn more, look into cold blooded vs warm
| blooded animals and longevity. Cold blooded animals might give us
| hints to slow aging in humans.
|
| Energy expenditure might be related to longevity. Eating more and
| exercising more (and the energy required to keep your core
| temperature up) might kill you faster, maybe through free radical
| production from metabolism.
| huytersd wrote:
| Aren't lobsters immortal if they never have an accident?
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| That one time a goldfish lived for more than 200 years:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanako_(fish)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-21 23:00 UTC)