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.'"

9 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. That's why I don't exercise by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    Keep my heart rate to a minimum...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:That's why I don't exercise by PmanAce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wrong. By exercising one can lower their heart rate. Around 72 is generally considered the number of beats per minute. From daily exercise I lowered mine to low 50s bpm. What is the difference of the number of beats a year for example between both resting heart rates? Around 11 037 600 beats, looks quite staggering.

      --
      Tired of my customary (Score:1)
  2. This is not new by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:This is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      True, the essay was published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, and the title was "The Slowly Moving Finger".

  3. "Formula" = Log-Log Regression by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  4. Exercise by eric31415927 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Wrong wrong wrong by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. apropos Redd Foxx quote by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals dying of nothing."

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  7. 2038 by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    "roughly a billion and a half heart beats...when your count is up, you are over.'"

    But I have a Unix heart; the counter flips over to zero in 2038.