Slashdot Mirror
The Mathematics of the Lifespan of Species
skade88 writes "NPR is reporting on a study in which the author claims to have found the formula to predict the average life span of members of a species. It does not apply to specific individuals of that species, only to the average life span of members of the species as a whole. From the article: 'It's hard to believe that creatures as different as jellyfish and cheetahs, daisies and bats, are governed by the same mathematical logic, but size seems to predict lifespan. The formula seems to be nature's way to preserve larger creatures who need time to grow and prosper, and it not only operates in all living things, but even in the cells of living things. It tells animals for example, that there's a universal limit to life, that though they come in different sizes, they have roughly a billion and a half heart beats; elephant hearts beat slowly, hummingbird hearts beat fast, but when your count is up, you are over.'"
I learned this decades ago.
Keep my heart rate to a minimum...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Isaac Asimov wrote an essay about this a long time ago (in the 1960's IIRC), and I doubt the idea originated with him.
I believe Asimov was talking about 3 billion heartbeats or so as the limit; 1.5 billion heartbeats is only about 60 years for a human, and we tend to live longer than that under good conditions.
...I should gain a couple hundred pounds?
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Time passes faster when you're having fun. If we have a limited number of heartbeats, the trick is to stay as miserable as possible, so that the time will pass more slowly.
Gently reply
I thought it was a billion breaths and 4 billion heart beats.
But this is old news. It is old news. 5 or 6 years old at least. The heart beat thing.
I haven't read the article, but does he mention the Sun, 10-11 billion or so year expected lifespan, and the billion or so solar cycles of 11.1 years?
He plots lifetime in days to entity mass in grams on a log-log plot and slaps a line on it. Note that some of the scatter in the vertical axis is up to 3 *orders of magnitude*. Had this been plotted on linear scale it would have looked like Jackson Pollock sneezed on the page. All that can be extracted is that big critters tend to live longer than small critters. So what is new here?
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
or was it Wonton Burrito Meals...I think I read the title wrong again.
What about parrots that live 50 or 60 years? What makes them different than other birds their size?
How does one quantify the heartbeat of a daisy?
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
There must be a creator since it is extremely unlikely we'd exist without hundreds of details being just so (ratio of proton to electron mass, EM vs gravity etc).
The counter is we wouldn't be here to ask the question in all the possible universes where we couldn't exist. Similarly: big animals need lots of resources. Since volume grows with the cube of the size but area with the square getting stuff into a bigger animal takes longer proportionate wise. If big animals didn't live longer they wouldn't exist because they wouldn't be around long enough to get big in the first place (you can't grow an elephant in the lifespan of a fruit fly so the fact that elephants exist implies they must live longer).
All life was designed by God.
---- GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I wonder how this applies to a species if an entire species is looked at as a multicellular organism and the timespan of a species existance to extinction.
My first thought against this would be we interact with other species and they effect us in ways that would throw numbers off greatly.
My response to that thought is, what if we applied it to all species on the planet, and looked at the planet as an organism.
What would that predict?
I don't accept that we should see this as inevitable. We are learning a lot very rapidly about nanotech and biotech and some of those advances are in the fields of things like regeneration, cures, and life extension.
I fully intend to work on developing this technology and trying to fix this problem. Just because our DNA is built this way doesn't mean that we can change it.
Bioengineering and Nanoengineering are going to be some of the coolest things to do for a long time to come.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
That thumping sound you hear in your chest?
That's your life beating away.
If that sounds worrying you shouldn't worry, the worrying only just makes your heart beat faster and brings your inevitable demise that much closer.
That worry is very dangerous, even if you stop now you've already shortened your lifespan, and for every second you worry longer you're losing more and more of your life. This worry and stress is literally killing you and it won't stop unless you stop getting stressed out.
Just some friendly advice.
I stole this Sig
Larger stars use up their fuel faster than smaller stars such as our sun. So much for fractal self-similarity being the "geometry of nature."
Does that mean the really big dinosaurs lived a few hundred years? Wait, their day was notionally anywhere from 6-18 hours, nowhere near today's 24 hour days. Maybe dinosaurs lived thousands of years.
I came up with a similar theory years ago as an excuse not to exercise, for exercising increases one's heart rate. I concluded that exercise would therefore shorten my life. My girlfriend at the time didn't buy my logic. As a step aerobics instructor and science graduate student, she assured me that exercising only temporarily increases one's heart rate and that people who exercise regularly have slower heart rates during the non-exercising parts of their lives. I hate it when people use my own logic against me.
There are so many exceptions to this "rule" that it is at best an interesting pattern. There are big turtles that live great long lives and big turtles that don't with little turtles being all over the place as well. There are birds of all kinds of sizes with small birds that live 80 years and big birds that live under 20. Some bacteria seem to be nearly immortal and others live days. Within dogs the big ones hardly outlast green bananas while the little ratty ones go on for decades. Poplar trees grow huge and die fast, oaks go on and on but some smaller trees are thousands of years old.
Even humming birds live a few years at crazy heartbeats as high as 1200 bpm (look it up if you don't buy that mind blowing number) yet other bigger birds with much slower heart beats live for the same length of time. So it isn't size or heartbeats.
If I had to suspect anything lifespan will be an evolutionary advantage like anything else. If you are surrounded by ever changing dangers a short fast life-cycle is probably best. But if you are fairly safe in steady environment a long life is probably safer. Turtles have slow metabolisms which allow them to survive long periods without food and are fairly safe from predictors so they don't have to worry about adapting too much. Rabbits are basically the forest's McNuggets so they need to continuously adapt in numbers and probably other things such as coloring; hence a fast short life cycle. We have created civilization where we are nearly 100% safe from predators and with things like food storage are not so buffeted by a changing nature; so we are getting longer an longer lived.
"Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing."
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
So, for your particular species, your best bet would be to select your parents for longevity. If you are into that sort of thing.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The trick will be to transfer our consciousness to a new machine/body.
But the selection of species was weak.
Giant turtles anyone?
So pedometers should count backwards....
But I have a Unix heart; the counter flips over to zero in 2038.
Table-ized A.I.
Someone never heard of telomeres. Lobsters aren't very heavy but might be nearly immortal based upon their telomeres. Lobsters die from predation, not old age, 200+ year-old lobsters are documented. Telomeres are better than body mass for predicting average lifespan.
Looking at brain mass might make this more predictable.
http://www.pereanu.com/comic/brain-size/
It is not the goal of evolution to produce beings with the largest possible lifespan. It's not even a goal, it is a mechanism which selects for the fittest *species*. A species, not a being.
What one gains in size and lifespan, one looses in the ability to adapt as a species. Short lived small and numerous beings reproduce frequently and adapt and improve their genetic code much faster than e.g. large whales.
Large animals may seem to be the kings of the animal world but they are the dead end of evolution. They all will die out and will be replaced by another large species which descends from currently small species.
Humans will be replaced by rats. Not because of inteligence but because of a faster genetic adaptation on a cellular level.
Parrots
Galapagos Tortoises
Dogs (small ones tend to outlive larger ones by a factor sometimes approaching 2)
(and those are just the 1st 3 examples which spring to mind in 30 s)
licet differant, aequabitur
The furthest time that can be represented this way is 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Common link in 'remarkably old' humans is that they've not had children (male & female) - As though the body knows when it has successfully reproduced and replaced itself.
"creatures as different as jellyfish and cheetahs, daisies and bats"
Daisies have heartbeats!
Bob.
Read the blog comments after the article. They have good and valid criticism of the article.
Apparently, scientists think that they don't die of old age.
I saw this first on a documentary, but here's a wikipedia article on it.
So, unless these guys are supposed to grow bigger-than-blue-whale big but they just do it super slowly, and these Anemone scientists were wrong about the 'forever' thing, but instead it's just 'a really, really long time', wouldn't this conflict with their theory?
What about all these politicians? Are we stuck with them forever?
Before anyone goes off on left vs. right being more heartless...it's a joke, get over yourself.
Just another day in Paradise
It is an interesting concept however it does appear to have some easily named exceptions as others have pointed out. It also though has a lot of overlap with reproduction selectivity (r/K theory). Namely animals with shorter lifespans breed quicker and have more offspring than animals that live longer and have longer gestation periods.
Think about it... you have an elephant which takes nearly 2 years to come to term, it would make no sense to have a 10 year life cycle. Instead, they can live 60-70 years. Think dogs and cats. Cats have anywhere from 2-4 kittens on average; dogs 6-10 puppies. Cats can live easily 20-30 years, dogs 10-20. Which one is bigger? Then again, wolves tend to have smaller litters and breed less often than dogs so maybe we tinkered with that.
So I guess my point is he has stumbled upon something (which may already be known according to other posters) but that it heavily overlaps with other theories. Now maybe size does play into r/K theory. From a high level view you have things like elephants, whales, humans and other large mammals that breed rarely and live long. Also I suppose its difficult to compare mammal verse reptile here. A tortoise lives a long time and lays many eggs but thats kind of how reptiles work. I don't know that it is a valid exception since it has reasons for not investing in raising children and to take a shot gun approach to it.
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
Explain to me the similar lifespans of gray parrots and elephants?
What about snakes, and other reptiles that continue growing with age. Do they die younger when young, and live longer when old?
We have a much more accurate value than Asimov's in Genesis 6:3
"After that Jehovah said: 'My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.'" (Genesis 6:3, NWT) That verse could be referring to the fact that God was about to flood the inhabited parts of Earth 120 years later to wipe away the interference of the Nephilim, right after Lamech and Methuselah were about to die. Noah was born when Lamech was 182, Methuselah died when Lamech was 782, and Lamech died at 777. (Genesis 5:25-31) So both Methuselah and Lamech died fairly shortly before Noah turned 600 and the flood came. (Genesis 7:6) The parallel view of Genesis 6:3 suggests that the authors of some paraphrase translations, such as the New Living Translation, didn't consider this possibility, even despite Abraham's over 170-year life.--Genesis 25:7.
http://buquad.com/2010/09/16/jellyfish-possess-eternal-life/
So Geoffrey West and his colleagues found that nature gives larger creatures a gift: more efficient cells. Literally.
Why not ask if the first step is when an organism hits upon a mutation to improve its efficiency and the consequence is larger/longer lasting individuals?
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
Roy: Can the maker repair what he makes.
Tyrell: Would you like to be modified?
Roy: Stay here. -- I had in mind something a little more radical.
Tyrell: What-- What seems to be the problem?
Roy: Death.
Tyrell: Death. Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my jurisdiction, you--
Roy: I want more life, fucker.
Tyrell: The facts of life. To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination.
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent a potent mutagen It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But, uh, this-- all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.
Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very very brightly, Roy. Look at you. You're the prodigal son. You're quite a prize!
Roy: I've done questionable things.
Tyrell: Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time.
Roy: Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you in heaven for.
A very fit adult human will have a pulse rate of 50 or under, compared to the so-called medical average of 70. Say you triple your heart rate for one hour a day during vigorous exercise for the 25% reduction the other 23 hours. That is still a 13% pulse rate reduction over all.
I've always exercised for short term well-being feeling and the fun of sport. As long as it doesnt seem to damage you in the long term (there are some open questions about this) or even lengthens you life, then all the better. I feel sorry for those slog through unpleasant exercise thinking they'll live a few years longer.
We dont live longer because we are larger, but are larger because we live longer. Both could be tied to a third factor such as inherent genetic metabolic rate.
I thought this was a well known truth. As a kid we would guestimate the expected life expectancy of critter (species, not individual) by listening to how fast its heart beat. We would then confirm it later by checking the literature. You had to make an allowance for the fact that the critter was usually stressed and therefore the heart rate would be a bit higher than normal. I always just assumed that a muscle could only contract so many times before breaking down.
At least with regards to animals I believe this has been known for some time. In my early teens I attended a zoo camp. One day we discussed animal lifespans and the zoologist giving the lecture made a similar statement about all living species having roughly the same number of heartbeats in a lifetime. That was over 20 years ago.
1,500,000,000 is one and a half billion; "a billion and a half" is 1,000,000,000.5.
And for those are saying this study isn't new, no one was claiming that it is: the article is about a paper published in 2007. Krulwich wrote another article about it, also for NPR, back then: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12877984
In further breaking news, averages are just that. There are so few of so many animals left, their natural environments are compromised and destroyed, how do you factor all that in. There are maybe 25% of big cat populations left of what there was just 20 years ago, when they were way lower than what they were 100 years ago! They are all in a critical state of possible extinction in the wild, and in captivity; in another twenty years there may be none! So many species are on the bubble, and their environments; the end is coming sooner rather than later, because of humans hunting, destruction of environment, and unforseen consequences of global warming. Hunting is still allowed on lions; despite their critical state. The favorite target, a male with full mane. You kill him, you kill all his cubs, as the younger males move in and kill his offspring and drive off older juveniles who are not ready to be on their own, especially since lions need to live in a pride to be succesfull as individuals. All for some sick, twisted show of macho and sport! Where is the sport in killing an innocent animal from long distance with a scope/sniper rifle? Radical action is needed for desperate times, politics and profit, ( is there a difference)? stand in the way of any efforts to save these symbols of freedom. We have been killing them for thousands of years, they survive somehow in ever smaller pockets of land; when will we stop and try to save them? Not just lions, but all creatures great and small, we need an animal bill of rights and laws and enforcement to back it up! I say, let's shoot a few of the murderers of innocents, publicly, and with great fanfare! Let them be hunted and killed without mercy, give them all the consideration they gave their victims!
Seems solid in theory but the simple fact is that if this were true then cardio exercise would be bad for you and we all know that's not the case. nuff said...
FTFY
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"