XuYamu (xuyamu)

@xuyamu It is a simple logic: the short lifespan of a mouse is inevitably restricted by its own inherent "bottlenecks." If a longevity-enhancing method produces similar, marginal effects across different species, it clearly isn't the deciding factor for lifespan. The truly critical factors must be those that vary drastically from one species to another. Rapamycin, for instance, provides a similar and relatively weak extension of life across various species, suggesting it isn't the key to a radical lifespan breakthrough. In contrast, DNA repair capabilities differ immensely between long-lived and short-lived species. A naked mole rat can live for 30 years, a human for 120, and a bowhead whale for 200. Even if you use Rapamycin to extend a mouse's life by 15%, so what? The mouse still won't come anywhere near the natural lifespan of a naked mole rat.

• 0 replies
• 0 recasts
• 0 reactions

@xuyamu The Champions of Longevity: Longest-lived animal overall: Monorhaphis chuni (A deep-sea glass sponge) Longest-lived non-colonial animal: Ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) Longest-lived vertebrate: Greenland shark Longest-lived mammal: Bowhead whale They share a striking commonality: they all inhabit extremely cold environments. This connection between cold and longevity demands serious investigation and reflection. If cold itself directly extends lifespan (for instance, by slowing metabolic rates), we might consider technologies that mimic the effects of cold. If, however, cold served as a selective pressure that drove the evolution of longevity, we must study the specific pathways through which cold promotes this evolution. By deciphering these biological "blueprints," we may find the inspiration needed to develop radical new life-extension technologies.

• 0 replies
• 0 recasts
• 0 reactions