I got some feedback from Peter about the video that is worth pointing out: "The only problem is when you discuss flight: the models says that kin-specificity of infection is the main problem. Pathogen loads might be high. E.g., in bat communities virus burden is enormous, but infections are likely occur promiscuously and not between close kin"
Yes, bats immediately come to mind. I'm not sure where the idea that infections in bats do not occur between close kin comes from. Both bats and birds often live in densely populated multi-generational communities. Probably the best person to answer that is Emma Teeling. NMRs live in close proximity with each other for decades. This theory also predicts that social animals should age faster which I think is not the case. Interesting, but demands more exploration.
What's wrong with flying in water? schooling fish: like sardines: 15 years. Solitary whale shark, 100 years. I'm not saying I'm sold on this. Thanks for the video!
I always thought ageing was because anti-ageing just wasn't selected for beyond a certain point. I think our ancestors had a life expectancy of about 30. If you are likely to die from starvation, injury, disease etc. then you will never live long enough for small amounts of accumulated damage to kill you.
that doesn't explain the vast difference in lifespans in biologically very similar organisms or the fact that aging involved evolutionarily conserved pathways.
@@davidkatz2897 Maybe it does. Different species may be more or less adept to surviving predation and disease and may have evolved anti aging mechanisms to work up until somewhere around an age that most individuals of that species statistically don't survive past anyway. Maybe there's a cost of some kind of trade-off between supporting the offspring you already have and the ones you could still have if you invest in living longer under slim chances of survival.
@@shulamay there has been no evidence of a trade-off between longevity and anything else. Flies and mice and worms cna be bred to be more furtile and live longer. Also, biologically very similar species, with very similar abilities to survive predation and disease, have drastically different lifespans. All evidence points to aging being caused by active chemical pathways, not a passive witering away
Rate of living theory seems correct. Exceptions are explained by membrane differences, which provide more resistance to lipid oxidation. It is seen that exceptions to rate of living can be explained by species with more resistant membranes, similar is seen in animals that live longer and in those that don't age. CR makes membranes more resistant to oxidation.
Someone might want to research the integrated stress response, the environmental sensor the Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor, and how they are impacted by contact with infections.
thankfully we have vaccines (especially MRNA) that may make this evolutionary adaptation moot that would actually strengthen the case that ageing is outdated tech interesting video
great video! a very important theory with very important implications. But we shouldn't just dismiss the population control theory because evolution had other mechanisms to control population growth. evolution does not need to be logical, and there are many adaptations that could be argued illogical by the same reasoning. we must observe nature as it is. it is nature, not logic, that always gets the last word.
