Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:38:58 UTC No. 16144948

>>16144942
You evolved more brain than brawns, and so that's why you're here typing this while your cat is not a fully conscious being.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 08:55:54 UTC No. 16144968

>>16144942
They reproduce just fine in their "short" (from your perspective) lives.
Humans and our closest extant relatives all rely on much more extended and complex social hierarchies and have only recently come to occupy upper trophic levels or "the top of the food chain". Indeed, extant apes are and prehistoric humans would have been primarily protected against mega predators like big cats due to their numbers.
This social organisation produces a new possible selection pressure - if you live a relatively longer life, you can ensure not just the survival of your children, but your grandchildren and perhaps even great grandchildren.
Indeed, amongst extant big cats, we find a trend of "the bigger it is, the longer it lives", not unlike most other animals. Tigers, however, are bigger than lions, and live on average in the wild 4-6 years less than smaller, more social lions. Even in the safety and low stress of captivity, the record for tigers is 26 years old versus 29 for lions.
This seems to lend credence to the theory that longevity can be selected for amongst social creatures.
>eliminating chronic stress doesn't matter
Why do they live so much longer in captivity?
>slowing down metabolism doesn't matter
Doesn't it? Have you tested calorie restriction for lifespan modulation on big cats?
>carnivore diet doesn't matter
All felines are obligate/true carnivores, so there's no basis for comparison between any of them here.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:18:14 UTC No. 16145004

>>16144968
From an evolutionary perspective the correlation between social organisation and longevity is compelling but lacking in physiology. ''Doesn't matter'' means: doesn't change the framework wherein longevity varies. Rather than optimizing longevity within a particular framework it's more interesting to discover what constitutes the framework.

For example: maybe the number of times a cell can divide is less for cats than for humans. That begs the question how humans grow longer telomeres than cats and/or how humans can repair the telomeres more often.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:30:16 UTC No. 16145019

>>16145004
Lifespan is an interesting physiological problem, yes, but it is exactly by comparative study of say, tigers vs lions, or naked molerats vs their extant more solitary relatives.
Naked molerats are very interesting as a sort of eusocial mammal. Based on their body size, small rodents that they are, you would expect them to only live for 5 or 6 years, but instead they can persist up to 30 years in the wild.
Clearly, social organisation is somehow allowing physiological processes affecting longevity to be selected for. What those differences are is likely to be an incredibly multifaceted and complex answer that encompasses so much more than mere calorie restriction or diet or telemeres.
Studies are now beginning to drill down on how these manifest
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124714006147

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:52:10 UTC No. 16145054

>>16144942
Fun fact: Lions can fuck 100 times a day >:3

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:56:37 UTC No. 16145061

>>16144942
>Why?
Are you looking for ideas or answers? IF the people actually working and studying that don't know, we're not going to not it either (answers), but we can surely come up with ideas!
I myself don't know why and don't have yet a good idea why iether sorry.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:56:58 UTC No. 16145062

>>16144942
Crocodiles also sleep most of the time and they live as long as they don't starve.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:27:45 UTC No. 16145133

>>16145019
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124714006147
I've read this and it confirms the something-doesn't-add-up feels. For example: the article emphasizes reduced oxidation like most popular longevity research but oxidation only explains modest variety of longevity within similar species. Monks who spend their lifes meditating on top of a mountain don't live to 150 years old. So it seems that the science is not focused on finding the biochemical process that breaks the paradigm of what we think is possible.

>>16145061
>we can surely come up with ideas!
So here's an idea within the oxidation paradigm: why is the body not 100% efficient in oxidizing what needs to be oxidized and not oxidizing anything else? In other words: for what reason does a fire that can fuel itself need to burn out?

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:37:38 UTC No. 16145143

>>16145133
> for what reason does a fire that can fuel itself need to burn out?
As long as a reproducer reproduces, it doesn't NEED to last any longer. The only time this changes is when living longer can ultimately improve the reproductive success of the reproducer.
If reproducers didn't die, they wouldn't need to reproduce.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:15:33 UTC No. 16145175

>>16145143
Following your logic we expect to see an increase in lifespan when we restrict reproduction to in vitro and only fertilize the frozen samples of those who've proven the longest. That still begs the question what genes and expressions characterize these samples and confirms the point that genetic determinism ultimately rains supreme over lifestyle intervention.

Furthermore, we can only select what is there to be selected. Rather than working with the cards nature has given to us we might want to engineer the platform. Besides: your view is replicator-centric à la Dawkins who views organisms as mere vehicles build by those replicators to carry the replicators to the next generation. Next you say: we need to stress these replicators to build better vehicles. Instead: we must build replicators ourselves otherwise what's the point of modern society? Might as well stay live in an african hut instead of doing complicated science for a few more years and a few % less disease risk.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 12:59:41 UTC No. 16145205

>>16144942
They need to hunt, so they die when anything impacts hunting.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 13:17:12 UTC No. 16145218

>>16144942
there's a few of them wildly while humans number in billions. try again.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:13:56 UTC No. 16145396

Humans/primates are an 'abnormality', especially in Africa.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:37:36 UTC No. 16145444

I predict a long term ternd towards increased longevity caused entirely by women choosing to work and worrying about kids when they are nearing 50. Theres some women that can reproduce at that age just fine, women that cant are being filtered.
The long term trend will be one of women with naturally extended fertility, and because that has to be linked with general health, it will also imply an extended lifespan,
Basically humans need a longer life to achieve everything they want (success, family) and evolution filters those who cant.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Apr 2024 17:45:50 UTC No. 16145540

>>16145444
Delusional if not serving the depopulation cause. Girls are hitting puberty and menstration earlier which means more eggs down the drain.